I was given a quick and dirty rule to use "tiu" where it referred to "la noun". It seems to work reasonably well to its limits.

It is messy to reverse. If you are referring to a specific person by name, the literal rule pushes you towards "tio". But the person is "la homo", so it's there implicitly. Whereas, "tio" referring to some matter you are discussing could be "la afero", afero gives away the game as abstract.

At any rate, I've found it to be serviceable, though like all grammar rules, if applied without thinking first it can go wrong.

@nornen, I would say Esperanto has enough flexibility to mimic the Romance languages. There are a surprising number of ways to say ĉar:

pro tio ke = tial ke = tial, kial
Cf. Russian потому что, так как.

And pro kio? = kial?
Cf. Russian почто? почему?, Italian perché? etc.

The correlatives really have a lot of potential if you play around enough.

It is curious why Zamenhof decided to include ĉar when you could just as profitably use pro ke, in a way similar to how por ke is already used. Some languages notably do not express the word because as a single word/concept - in Russian, you have to either use two words (потому что, так как, из-за) or the archaic ибо.

nornen:Just to get the Spanish straight:

para = por

para que = por ke
Trabaja para que coman. = Li laboras por ke ili manĝu.

por = pro / pri

por qué = kial
¿Por qué saliste? = Kial vi eliris?

porqué = kialo
Desconozco el porqué de sus acciones. = Mi ne scias la kialon de liaj faraĵoj.

por que = pro tio, ke / pri tio, ke
El estado vele por que los ciudadanos vivan en paz. = La ŝtato zorgu pri tio, ke la ŝtatanoj vivu pace.

porque = ĉar
Lo hice porque pude. = Mi faris ĝin, ĉar mi povis (ĝin fari).

Spanish is a bit more regular in this aspect. Instead of ĉar you simply say pro ke (in analogy to por ke), instead of kial you simply say pro kio (in analogy to por kio), and instead of kialo you say proo.

Muchas gracias, Nornen!

Hi, I just googled the difference between Tio and Tiu and found this thread.

I'm a little confused by the rules eshapard put out on page one, specifically the "don't use tio to refer to a person" rule. It looks Johmue gave a counter example to that.

I was wanting to ask if it really was significant in conversation or writing whether or not this specific rule is used. I personally think in a verbal context it would not be a problem but I'm only a beginner learner and so I'm unsure. I worry more about it in written form though, for example if someone were writing a book in Esperanto, would it create significant ambiguity for the reader?

I also wonder how someone would teach the difference between the two in a real setting. Does anyone here have experience with how to address that?

To sum up what was written earlier. These are Tempodivalse's rules:

1. In combination with a noun, use tiu (never tio), like you'd use an adjective.

--> Tiu libro estas tro multekosta. - That book is too expensive.

2. Use tio by itself.

--> Tio estas mia plej favorata libro. - That is my favourite book.

3. If it's clear from context that you are talking about a particular range of objects, and you wish to pick out one particular specimen from that range, you may use tiu by itself, with the referent strongly implied. This is equivalent to the English that one. For example:

--> Jen la libroj, kiujn mi vendas. - Bone. Kiom kostas tiu [libro]? Here are the books I'm selling. - Great. How much does that one cost?

4. Standalone tiu is the demonstrative equivalent of the terms: "everybody" (ĉiu), "somebody" (iu), "nobody" (neniu). Think of it as meaning "thatbody"! Most anglophones don't have problems with neniu and iu (nobody, somebody). So remember that tiu follows the same pattern - it would be grammatically correct to use it where you'd use the other -u correlatives to refer to people.

--> Mi demandis tion al la politikisto. Tiu [politikisto] donis nur duonrespondon. - I asked the politician that. He ("thatbody" ) only gave a half-answer.

hyzica:Hi, I just googled the difference between Tio and Tiu and found this thread.

I'm a little confused by the rules eshapard put out on page one, specifically the "don't use tio to refer to a person" rule. It looks Johmue gave a counter example to that.

I was wanting to ask if it really was significant in conversation or writing whether or not this specific rule is used. I personally think in a verbal context it would not be a problem but I'm only a beginner learner and so I'm unsure. I worry more about it in written form though, for example if someone were writing a book in Esperanto, would it create significant ambiguity for the reader?

I also wonder how someone would teach the difference between the two in a real setting. Does anyone here have experience with how to address that?

Tiu has, as one of its inherent meanings, 'that person'. So if you use tiu without any context that says otherwise, people will probably assume you're talking about a person.

Tio just means 'that' (as in the pronoun use of the word that). It refers to whatever has been or will be made clear by context.

You could say something like 'Tio estas mia frato' (that is my brother) and I think it would be grammatically correct, but it would also be undoubtedly correct to say 'Tiu estas mia frato' (that [person] is my brother).

Using tiu exclusively when referring to a person is perhaps more of a style choice. I've seen the rule seemingly written in an Esperanto grammar book (maybe the author meant something else). It's also hard to go wrong using that rule. And it's not like you gain something from using tio; they're both three-letter words.

RE Ambiguity: It might be possible to use tio to refer to a person in an ambiguous way. Perhaps you see a woman on a horse and you say to me 'Tio estas bela' (that is beautiful). I'd think you were talking about the horse. If you said 'Tiu estas bela', I'd think you were talking about the woman.

BTW I searched tekstaro.com for 'tio estas mia patro' and 'tio estas mia frato' and found no results. I'd be interested to see if tio has ever been used to refer to a person in a published work.

--forigite--