RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:Says who??

Says Zamenhof.

Yeah, but how recently?



Seriously, it's amazing this thread has grown so long over a conlang word hardly anybody ever uses.

I checked google for "vi estas" versus "ci estas" and got a hundred times as many hits for the former.

A lot of the "ci" references look like this:

"Ci estas unu-nombra alparola pronomo (kiu tute ne montras sekson). Ci kaj cia ekzistas nur teorie, kaj estas preskaŭ neniam praktike uzataj." (from PMEG)

In other words, "ci" is only mentioned to point out that it's not used.

RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:Says who??

Says Zamenhof.

Really? I don't see anywhere in Lingvaj Respondoj (AFAIK the only place other than the vocab list that introduced it where his own words on "ci" are even in existence) I don't see even one instance of any kind of directive not to use it. The only negatives on its use that I see are in conjunction with the T-V problem He says "all cultures express familiarity with the singular pronoun" or verbiage like that but he is wrong. The Polynesian languages don't use the 'oe/koe for familiarity, neither, I believe, does Cantonese. Greek (until after the koine period) did not, Latin did not until the 4th century, at least one of the dialects of English that retains it, does not use it in that manner. It (T-V distinction) is far from the universal so I don't think it should be any influence on the subject. I reiterate: any "problem" with the use of "ci" is the onus on the listener putting on it a distinction from their own culture, not in the word itself.

orthohawk:

RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:Says who??

Says Zamenhof.

Really? I don't see anywhere in Lingvaj Respondoj (AFAIK the only place other than the vocab list that introduced it where his own words on "ci" are even in existence) I don't see even one instance of any kind of directive not to use it.

In Ekzercaro 16

"Ci skribas (anstataŭ „ci” oni uzas ordinare „vi”)"

orthohawk:I reiterate: any "problem" with the use of "ci" is the onus on the listener putting on it a distinction from their own culture, not in the word itself.

If you believe that, then what is the problem? Use it. End of discussion.

No one is saying you can't use ci. Only that you shouldn't if you wish to be polite. If being polite is low on your priority list, then go for it - ci it up, as it were. Just be aware that lots of people will consider it obnoxious and will be put off by it, and that that isn't actually going to change by insisting that they are wrong.

But like I said, if being obnoxious isn't an issue, ci is certainly on the table. Right next to na, ri, ŝli, and the rest. No one can stop you from using a single one of them.

Bruso:

orthohawk:

RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:Says who??

Says Zamenhof.

Really? I don't see anywhere in Lingvaj Respondoj (AFAIK the only place other than the vocab list that introduced it where his own words on "ci" are even in existence) I don't see even one instance of any kind of directive not to use it.

In Ekzercaro 16

"Ci skribas (anstataŭ „ci” oni uzas ordinare „vi”)"

"One ordinarily uses vi.". is not a directive/command NOT to use ci.

orthohawk:"One ordinarily uses vi.". is not a directive/command NOT to use ci.

That was addressed earlier in this thread.

RiotNrrd:No one is saying you can't use ci. Only that you shouldn't if you wish to be polite. If being polite is low on your priority list, then go for it - ci it up, as it were. Just be aware that lots of people will consider it obnoxious and will be put off by it, and that that isn't actually going to change by insisting that they are wrong.

But like I said, if being obnoxious isn't an issue, ci is certainly on the table. Right in there with na, ri, ŝli, and the rest. No one can stop you from using a single one of them.

OMG. How many times does it need to be reiterated before you get it??? The issue of rudeness connected with "ci" IS. NOT. the onus of the speaker. It is the onus of the listener. When I address thee as "ci"I am not being rude. OTOH, anyone taking offense is the rude SOB because they assume that I am the rude SOB. Where and when I grew up, it is/was very rude to attribute bad intentions to people when there is no evidence for it other than the attributer's own hangups.

I looked in a number of common sources. Here's what they had to say:

1: "Teach Yourself Esperanto", contains no mention whatsoever of ci, either in the text or in the wordlists. As far as they're concerned, it isn't worth teaching to yourself.

2: The TYE Dictionary (The "Wells" dictionary) says "pronoun thou (used only for special literary effect)".

3: "Being Colloquial in Esperanto" says:

"The pronoun vi is both singular and plural. The pronoun ci is only singular, but is very rarely used; when it does occur it is always rather affected. On the model of European languages, it is intended to communicate intimacy or to be used to persons of lower status (or animals). Sometimes it is used to create pseudo-archaic effects (like "thou" in English), and I have heard it used to children on rare occasions by speakers of languages with comparable pronouns, but it is fair to say that it never really caught on. Indeed, examples are so forced that some authors use ci only to suggest quaintness."

4: However, for a vote more in favor, "Step By Step In Esperanto" says:

"En poemoj oni ofte legas la vorton ci, kaj de tempo al tempo oni ĝin uzas en intima konversacio. Tamen, en la ordinara vivo, eĉ in preĝo, oni pli ofte uzas vi. La uzo aŭ neuzo de ci estas afero de stilo kaj gusto. Mi cin amas. Donu al mi cian maneton. Kial ci ploras? Kial vicias min?"

"In poems one often sees the word ci, and from time to time one may use it in intimate conversation. However, in ordinary life, even in prayer, one more often uses vi. The use or avoidance of ci is an affair of style and taste." (some examples follow)

5: La PMEG is entirely dismissive of it, leaving it completely out of the list of pronouns, and noting underneath

"Teorie ekzistas ankaŭ la pronomo ci, sed ci normale ne estas uzata."

"Theoretically there also exists the pronoun ci, but ci normally is not in use today."

So, there you go. Either it isn't worth mentioning, or, if mentioned, is a word so quaint and/or archaic that no one uses it, OR it's used only for your very, very close circle of intimates, and otherwise to people of lower status or to animals. In those contexts, though, it's totally cool. So, when you're impatiently snapping your fingers at the busboy down at the Esperanto Cafe, use ci and really underscore the difference in your statuses. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.

orthohawk:

RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:Says who??

Says Zamenhof.

Really? I don't see anywhere in Lingvaj Respondoj

Take another look. It's there. Scroll down to "Pri la pronomo "ci", roughly halfway down the page.

Here's my translation of Zamenhof's words

lingvaj respondoj:ABOUT THE PRONOUN "CI"

The non-use of "ci" is not at all an unconscious imitation of existing language - on the contrary, it is a special aspect of the language Esperanto, a special aspect based purely on practical considerations and explorations. The best way, of course, would be if we would say "vi" to more than one person and to one person always "ci", but all current cultured people have become so accustomed to the idea, that "ci" has something disrespectful in it, that we could never require from the Esperantists that they always say "ci" to one person, we would then have a separate pronoun of politeness (and such a pronoun actually existed in Esperanto prior to the year 1878.). But the practice of all existing languages showed that this sort of "polite form" was often very embarrassing, becauwe we often don't know how we should speak with this person or another (for example to a child, etc): "ci" seems to us possibly offensive, a pronoun of politeness sounds laughably ceremonial. In these occasions, existing languages use various strategies, which are, however, often very embarrassing, both for the speaker and the listener (for example, instead of "ci" and "vi" one would say "li", "oni", "sinjoro", "fraŭlo", etc.) To remove these embarrassments, there is only one solution: to say to all, everyone, and everythign only "vi". This can never cause misunderstanding, because in the very rare cases of unclarity we can add detail to our speech, saying "vi, sinjoro" or "vi ĉiuj, "vi ambaŭ", etc. For people who strongly feel the need of "ci" (for example, when they turn to God or to a beloved person), the use of "vi" seems disagreeable only at the beginning (then they are permitted to use "ci" ), but after some practice, one easily becomes accustomed to using "vi", that it makes you perfectly content and there is absolutely nothing "cold" found in it. Everything depends only on getting accustomed.
Respondo 28, La Revuo, 1908, Februaro

This is a pretty clear statement from Zamenhof not recommending "ci".

To me this is the point - there are many people of good will in the world. People of good will can disagree on what is polite or impolite behavior, especially when you have many cultures mixing. Polite behavior for one culture may be the exact opposite of polite behavior for another culture. Like RiotNrrd says - even if you are trying hard to be polite, if you know that something is likely to offend someone, why would you do it? In Esperanto, sometimes we make allowances for different cultures. Cultural misunderstandings can happen even among close friends, so if we know from the start that something is likely to be an issue, it's better to pick the safe choice than to risk offending someone just to make a point.