Į turinį
Atsakyti

ĉjo njo and what for neuter?

marbuljon, 2014 m. gruodis 9 d.

Žinutės: 44

Kalba: English

orthohawk (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 12 d. 17:07:15

Kirilo81:
marbuljon:Jehepp, it's indeed a product of your own culture if you get upset if I call you a nickname.

Hell, I'm calling you a nickname in my head right now - your username.
And it's a product of your culture to think people shouldn't get upset when you call them informally without their consent. okulumo.gif
Esperanto communication is about reciprocal esteem and considerateness and not to take own conventions as granted, isn't it?

"Kirilo81" is not an intimate name in my understanding, BTW.
and is thee not a product of thine when offended by being addressed as "ci"?

"Ci" in and of itself denotes nothing but "2nd person singular", Zamenhof to the contrary (I know: BLASPHEMY!!!!). In fact, even HE states that it's (as I have said before) the influence from the original speakers' native cultures that causes the problem. It says so right there in the passage that thee quoted. Any "problem" with it as to informal vs. formal nuance is a holdover from a speaker's/listener's language. After all there is no long history in Esperanto of "ci" strictly being singular and "vi" strictly being plural with the introduction at some point of "vi" as a "respectful" form of address based on imitating another culture (which is how the whole mess got started). I for one will use "ci" when addressing one person (as I use "thee" in English). Call me stupid or boorish (which of course, thee would never do, being the polite person that thee is), but if someone is going to feel offended, it's their problem, not mine, their faulty understanding (and assumption), not mine.

Yes, yes, nobody uses it that way, it's not a "real" part of the language, blah blah blah. Well, what if people started using it? Would it not "catch on" then? okulumo.gif

Kirilo81 (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 12 d. 20:10:44

Dear Orthohawk, I want to close this discussion from my side now and don't want to repeat the lenghty argumentation from last(?) year.
Clearly your point of view with regard to taking offense (~offensive words are not offensive if they are not meant that way by me) is a minority view, as is your use of ci.

I personally (BTW: I'm from Germany, where du 'ci' is spreading at the expense of Sie (formal) 'vi' ) would have no problem with a mere singular vs. plural ci -vi at all. I'd use it myself, if it were considerably established or understood. But it isn't.

amigueo (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 12 d. 22:07:30

ci: in esperanto is intimate and biblical, so a good element we can use optionally as a prefix to express affection:

cutie friend : ciamiko or amiketo
daddy : cipatro or pacjo

amigueo (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 12 d. 22:21:07

for expressing unrespect or desdain, "ci" is not necessary, we can use "fi".
"he, fi kiinu auxdacas kontrauxdiri mian dian parolon..."

i feel the lack of a set of resources for expressing the affection with some variety (eto is too little).

orthohawk (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 13 d. 04:15:11

Kirilo81:I'd use it myself, if it were considerably established or understood. But it isn't.
and it never will be with that attitude. Vicious circle.

Christa627 (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 13 d. 20:16:53

orthohawk: I for one will use "ci" when addressing one person (as I use "thee" in English). Call me stupid or boorish (which of course, thee would never do, being the polite person that thee is), but if someone is going to feel offended, it's their problem, not mine, their faulty understanding (and assumption), not mine.

Yes, yes, nobody uses it that way, it's not a "real" part of the language, blah blah blah. Well, what if people started using it? Would it not "catch on" then? okulumo.gif
Well, if I were to use singular and plural second-person pronouns in English, I would use all of them; "thou, thee" and "ye, you". I really think that the loss of three perfectly good second-person pronouns from the English language is a tragedy...

Of course, then I would feel the need to also use the older corresponding verb forms, and that would make things more complicated.

As for "ci" as a second-person singular pronoun in Esperanto; I do like the idea, but, as most other people don't use it, I don't usually either. But for the record, thy use of it doesn't bother me.

Kirilo81 (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 13 d. 21:09:08

orthohawk:and it never will be with that attitude. Vicious circle.
Of course! But in order to break a vicious circle you need a good motivation.
And I simply don't see that a system ci -vi would be advantageous over simple vi. (This holds true the other way around, too. If Esperanto started with ci - vi, I would be the last one to postulate a change to vi only.)

erinja (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 14 d. 04:08:08

If people want to discuss "ci" and "vi", I suggest doing it somewhere other than this thread. It is not the topic of this thread. (topic: ĉj and nj, and whether there is a neuter gender version of those. answer = no, use -et- instead)

Clarence666 (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 17 d. 21:27:31

Kirilo81:task of a language to hold ready suffixes for all possible social genders
It's not task of a language to look between peoples legs before able to say anything. There is no need for trillions of suffixes, just one ("-jo" preceded by anything axcept "n" and "cx" ) is sufficient.

> ĉj and nj, and whether there is a neuter gender version of those. answer = no, use -et- instead

there is a problem: "et" follows the complete root (hundo -> hundeto) but ĉjo/njo/rjo truncates the root (Lindsay->lirjo), and "et" actually is barely usable with names ("Lindsayeto", "Tometo", ...).

Bemused (Rodyti profilį) 2014 m. gruodis 19 d. 01:00:23

Clarence666:
There is no need for trillions of suffixes, just one ("-jo" preceded by anything axcept "n" and "cx" ) is sufficient.

> ĉj and nj, and whether there is a neuter gender version of those. answer = no, use -et- instead

there is a problem: "et" follows the complete root (hundo -> hundeto) but ĉjo/njo/rjo truncates the root (Lindsay->lirjo), and "et" actually is barely usable with names ("Lindsayeto", "Tometo", ...).
+1

Also the use of "-jo" would be unambiguous.
Eg.
Using "-et" in this way, kateto could mean:
- small cat, or
- kitty ( pet name for a cat ).
Using "-jo" there would be no possible misunderstanding:
- kateto = small cat
- katjo = kitty.

Of course this would be "unofficial", but so was much of the existing vocabulary when first used, and the use of the x convention was in direct contravention of the Fundamento, which specifies the h convention.

If enough people found it useful, and began using it, then it would eventually become common usage.

Atgal į pradžią