darkweasel:+1 - strange how people love to argue over whether the sky is blue. (*)

I figure it's so that we only have to discuss the detailed nuances of ci once. Get it all out of the way. An ad-hoc FAQ[1], as it were. From now on, this thread is where people can read about the vagaries of ci.

"Ci? Oh, no, you probably don't want to use it in that situation. Why? Sit down, get comfortable, and read all about it over HERE..."

While tedious now, it will save time later.

------------------------------------
[1] Kind of a rambly and confrontational one, it seems, but what can ya do?

I do really like the depiction of sky color topic progression, btw. That is just about spot on.

Eventually references to Nazi's and Naziism will appear, though, in any thread of moderate length. Typically, I think, around page 12, or thereabouts (although sometimes earlier).

You left that part out.

RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:Does it matter? It seems regardless of what I say I'm "the offensive boor" and you've made up your mind already.

No one is calling you a boor. Making an unintentional mistake in the usage of a word isn't a crime in any way. All it means is that you may have accidentally annoyed a few people at some point in the past without realizing it. It's certainly no big deal, and I'm sure they'll get over it (if they even remember it).

Use the common (and respectful) form of address (i.e., vi) when dealing with acquaintances and strangers going forward, and there's no harm, no foul. You are not branded as a terrible person for having used the intimate version of the pronoun with strangers in the past. But now that you are aware of the full meaning and use of ci, you may want to scale that use back a bit.

Oh. My. G-d. Do you not read a thing I post?? Esperanto DOES NOT HAVE AN INTIMATE 2ND PERSON PRONOUN. That nuance is from OTHER LANGUAGES. Even Zamenhof said the issue is one of influence ::from other languages:: and that means that the issue is not one inherent to Esperanto. "Ci" is the 2nd singular pronoun. Full stop. No other nuance attached to it inherent to Esperanto.

Then why is its usage historically nearly nonexistent?

While ci has never come into common use in Esperanto (apart from humorously), I can think of a possible use for it: in translating the works, for example, of 17th century people like the Quakers, to illustrate their style. It might also be used to illustrate the difference between older and modern translations of the bible.

what do you expect? editorial revision isn't cheap,

Actually Ben, that isn't a strong an argument as it looks.

Much work is done on a voluntary basis in the Esperanto movement and just as an author or translator might not get paid a cent in advance, so farming a text out for correction or comment may be done at low cost.

The problem more likely is caused by the amateurism of much that is done in the movement, or the vanity of the translator/author, or not wishing to criticize or hurt somebody's feelings.

It is quite noticeable that on the whole Esperanto is taken up by a rather woolly-minded set of lefties, with little entrepreneurial acumen.

Also the mindset of these people is against discrimination in any form. But sometimes you have to discriminate, you have to judge, and you have to reject, in order to get results.

I don't know what the Esperanto is for to waffle, but the length of this thread demonstrates how much the samideanoj like to indulge in this activity. Perhaps it is no accident that neither of my Eng-Esp dictionaries has a satisfactory translation for this concept.

In my own case, I don't waffle. I am a sophist, altogether a much more sophisticated thing. The clue is in the name!

sudanglo:

what do you expect? editorial revision isn't cheap,

Actually Ben, that isn't a strong an argument as it looks.

Much work is done on a voluntary basis in the Esperanto movement and just as an author or translator might not get paid a cent in advance, so farming a text out for correction or comment may be done at low cost.

The problem more likely is caused by the amateurism of much that is done in the movement

think about the word you're using... "amateurism"... and what you just got done saying, that esperanto writing is largely non-professional. is it so surprising to you that amateurs often display amateurism?

it's only natural that the majority of people who get involved in everything from writing to translating to editing to publishing are going to be unskilled. it's that way in the English language too (check out duotrope.com's list of literary magazines), but we just happen to have so many fluent speakers that we end up with greater raw numbers.

the fact that Esperanto has even a few transcendent geniuses (Zamenhof, Kalocsay, Auld) is a testament to the ability of our language to transcend "amateurism." show me something comparable in any planned language, or even in any language with a similar number of speakers.

(apart from that, i'd much rather read an amateur writer like T.S. Eliot than a professional writer like Dean Koontz.)

It is quite noticeable that on the whole Esperanto is taken up by a rather woolly-minded set of lefties, with little entrepreneurial acumen.

Also the mindset of these people is against discrimination in any form. But sometimes you have to discriminate, you have to judge, and you have to reject, in order to get results.

I don't know what the Esperanto is for to waffle, but the length of this thread demonstrates how much the samideanoj like to indulge in this activity. Perhaps it is no accident that neither of my Eng-Esp dictionaries has a satisfactory translation for this concept.

you keep referring to the movement as "them." why do you post on lernu.net while excluding yourself from the Esperanto movement? instead of criticizing "them," why not work together with "us"?

Agreed, our resources are limited, but it is well within our resources to get stuff checked out with speakers of other languages before it gets into print.

One doesn't want to stifle innovation. Experimental usage by original authors and translators has led to growth in the language.

But this business of 'ci' is a done deal. So to translate dialogue with it is not on, and should have been picked up in the editing.

readers (and speakers) form their own editorial process, in a sense. the worst published literature ends up confined to a curiosity of someone's grandfather's book collection, and eventual oblivion. standards are good, but we can't force every publisher to have them.

then again, as i've experienced first-hand, everyone can be a publisher these days. you can publish a book for free just by going on the internet. so standards are becoming more and more essential if people expect to keep calling themselves publishers.

Interestingly, French police are no longer allowed to use 'tu' to members of the public as it is considered insulting and demeaning...

http://www.france24.com/en/20130301-french-police-...
French police will no longer be allowed to call suspects the familiar "tu" (meaning "you" ) and will have to address anyone they speak using the French equivalent of "sir" or "madam".
French police will be obliged to address all members of the public using the equivalent of "sir" or "madam", according to a new code of conduct to go into force next month.
The document explicitly forbids officers from using the familiar “tu” [“you”, in the singular] form of address to members of the public - in any circumstances.
Instead, anyone they speak to - including youths who would have no compunction in calling them “tu” to their faces - must now be addressed using the formal “vous” [“you” in the plural] at all times.
The new code of conduct states: “Police officers are at the service of the general public. Their relationship with the public must be marked by impeccable courtesy. This excludes the informal ‘tu’.
“Officers are expected to behave in all circumstances in an exemplary fashion and with complete respect for the dignity of individuals. This will inspire greater respect in return.”
‘Tu’ can be insultingly over-familiar
In France, “tu” is normally used among family, friends and close acquaintances, as well as when speaking to young children.
In schools, teachers call their pupils “tu” until they are in their mid-teens, while children are always expected to reply using “vous”.
The inappropriate use of “tu” is considered over-familiar - and sometimes deliberately belittling.
Applying the new code of conduct will be a painful change for certain police units for whom the use of the informal address, especially when dealing with youths in France’s troubled suburbs, is second nature.
‘An implied threat’
One such un-named youth told France Info radio on Friday: “For many police officers, using the familiar ‘tu’ is in their DNA.
“But it carries an implied threat; it’s the kind of thing that can quite naturally ignite a violent reaction and it’s always the youths who come off badly.
“Quite rightly a lot of young people refuse to be spoken to this way.”
Members of the Anti-Criminal Brigade (BAC), a plain-clothes police group that is particularly active in France’s restive suburbs, told France Info that they were worried about the implication of the directive.
One officer, named only as Matthieu, said that using the familiar form of address was “an indispensable tool for asserting authority”.
“This measure is not going to make our lives any easier,” he said. “It certainly won’t alleviate any of the stress of the job. It may even aggravate it.”
His colleague Daniel added that officers were specifically trained as to when it was acceptable to call someone “tu” or “vous”.
“It’s all down to the context ... o ...