Viktoro44:Formal/informal distinction perhaps is not in the aim of Esperanto, but I think that Eo is a very analytical language and this case is an exception. Ĉu ne?

I don't think Esperanto is so analytical as many other languages. We have only one verb form for each tense, rather than six (or more). Many other aspects of the grammar are much simpler than other languages. We are usually very vague about verb tense, compared to other languages.

Regarding the utility of the singular and plural "you", I think it is only possibly useful when talking to two people. When talking to one person, it is clear that "you" means only the one person. When talking to two people, it is clear that plural "you" refers to both people. But when talking to three or more people, you have to add an additional word to indicate if you mean plural "you" (all three), or plural "you" (only two of the three). In cases of 3 or more, therefore, you would have to add an extra word to specify. "You two" or "You three" or "All of you", etc.

mnlg:The possibility to speak formally, or to make it clear that you are avoiding formality even when you should use it, would add more depth to the language (think business relations, or youth slang).

I see this as an unnecessary complication. I'm sure it makes sense to you since you are a native Italian speaker, but when speaking Italian, it is hard for me to figure out when it is appropriate to use the informal pronoun, and when to use the formal. I don't wish to sound disrespectful, which can be the result if you choose either excessive formality *or* excessive informality for the occasion. Maybe it's clear if you "grew up in the system", but it isn't clear at all to me, and it is just one of the many things that causes me stress when speaking a language that makes this distinction.

For a language like Esperanto, intended for cross-cultural communications, I think that the existence of a formal and informal pronoun could lead to more conflicts than problems solved. Each culture would almost certainly have different ideas about which relationships require one pronoun and which relationships require the other. It would be just one more thing for new beginners to memorize, and agonize over as they speak to people, trying to avoid causing offense.

And personally, I have never felt the need for such a pronoun in English. It is very clear from the other words I use, whether I am speaking in a formal or informal, respectful or disrespectful way, without the use of formal or informal pronouns. It is much easier to find a happy medium of speaking to *everyone* in a respectful (but not stuffy or excessively formal) way, when you don't have a minefield of pronouns to navigate.

erinja:When talking to one person, it is clear that "you" means only the one person...

It's not so clear. You can talk to one person about others persons, ex: "you (the person to whom i talk) go back home and you (all persons at home) make the work".

erinja:When talking to two people, it is clear that plural "you" refers to both people

Not necessarly, how to know that the "you" is plural? If i only say "you are joking", what will the two persons understand?

So, using only "you" could lead to misunderstandings (similar problem can occur in french with formal/informal singular/plural "vous" and of course with many others languages).

Using a 2nd singular pronoun avoid the need to precise, by other words, in a group of persons, if i speak to one or to others. It's intrinsic. It does not matter with formal/informal distinction and relationship which is an other problem.

erinja:I don't think Esperanto is so analytical as many other languages.

On the contrary, I think it is analytical in the sense that it tries to break down meanings into different words so that you can combine them to get the exact nuance you want to have. With ethnic languages that's more difficult, according to their morphology of course.

We have only one verb form for each tense, rather than six (or more)

Actually we have a grand total of 12 different ways to describe an action with a verb, and this is only for descriptions, and in the active form. There are more calculating the "imaga modo" (-us), "vola modo" (-u), and the infinitive. Also, a few languages have more than one infinitive, but this can be simulated in esperanto with the noun (e.g. "lego") or other constructions.

Many other aspects of the grammar are much simpler than other languages.

This is exactly why esperanto lends itself to better analysis.

We are usually very vague about verb tense, compared to other languages.

The fact that in everyday talk the average Esperanto speaker does not bother being extra precise about the time and state of an action, does not mean that Esperanto does not allow further accuracy.

mnlg:The possibility to speak formally, or to make it clear that you are avoiding formality even when you should use it, would add more depth to the language (think business relations, or youth slang).

I see this as an unnecessary complication.

The "unnecessary complication" is neither unnecessary nor complicated for a long list of languages, for which having *no* similar device would be a terrible complication. I think most of what I would call unnecessary complications in Esperanto relate to its grammar, namely the agreement of noun and adjectives in number and case (miajn belajn grandajn valizojn). However my take on the issue was about social relevance and language style, not on grammar.

but when speaking Italian, it is hard for me to figure out when it is appropriate to use the informal pronoun, and when to use the formal.

The fact that Italian expects its speakers to be formal on a number of occasions would not necessarily reflect on Esperanto the same way; the formality might be limited to a handful of occasions, but it could be used (or abused) if necessary. The mere fact that there are people wishing for it to be there is IMHO enough proof that it wouldn't be that hard to use.

For a language like Esperanto, intended for cross-cultural communications, I think that the existence of a formal and informal pronoun could lead to more conflicts than problems solved.

I would prefer having a possibility, even if unused, than not having it at all. The way it is now, it is difficult (or better said, it is not immediate nor particularly defined how) to sound formal in Esperanto, and it is also difficult to determine singular and plural when using "vi"; and for a language designed to be used at every level of communication, I am not entirely sure that having the solutions to those problems, even if only potentially, would be inherently a complication.

Each culture would almost certainly have different ideas about which relationships require one pronoun and which relationships require the other.

I do not necessarily agree. There are languages missing names for certain colors, but I would say that when speaking Esperanto you are supposed to use the correct name for a certain color (and the other way around). Esperanto already has variations on its own standards; there are words only to be used in poetry, and there are bits and pieces of youth slang. Personally I don't see anybody agonizing over those.

[English]
It is very clear from the other words I use, whether I am speaking in a formal or informal, respectful or disrespectful way,

Okay, so supposing that you mean that the same method should be enough for Esperanto, you are basically saying that the same Esperanto speaker who would be agonizing over when to be formal, should be extra careful of what words to use in every given situation, or, in other words (pun not intended), he or she would have to memorize the degree of formality of each accompanying word that he or she is going to use, because the whole underlying formality of his (of her) expressions would be drawn from them and them alone?

mnlg:
Okay, so supposing that you mean that the same method should be enough for Esperanto, you are basically saying that the same Esperanto speaker who would be agonizing over when to be formal, should be extra careful of what words to use in every given situation, or, in other words (pun not intended), he or she would have to memorize the degree of formality of each accompanying word that he or she is going to use, because the whole underlying formality of his (of her) expressions would be drawn from them and them alone?

You conveniently left out the part where I said "It is much easier to find a happy medium of speaking to *everyone* in a respectful (but not stuffy or excessively formal) way, when you". To re-iterate that, if there are no specific pronouns, it is easier to find a neutral middle ground between formal and informal. You are not forced into a choice with the first sentence that comes out of your mouth. If I truly feel a need to be formal with someone, I can refer to them as "sinjoro" or "sinjorino". If I truly feel a need to be informal with someone, I can refer to them as "amiko". But for the vast majority of cases, I can use neutral sentences, speaking in a respectful way without adding specific indicators of formality or informality. It is this middle ground that is completely absent in languages that distinguish grammatically between formal and informal. In those languages you are *forced* to decide whether to speak formally or informally to someone. I prefer not to have to decide. I prefer to choose for myself when to use formal terms, when to use informal terms, and when to use neutral terms. I don't agonize over it in English or Esperanto because I am allowed to speak to someone in a neutral voice. If I am unsure of whether to speak formally or informally to someone, it's no problem. Usually the way to do this is never to call the person by name (thus avoiding having to decide between Mr/Mrs. X, and calling them by their first name). Meanwhile, I can know someone for *years* and never ever choose to refer to them formally or informally, simply by avoiding their name, because I can keep calling them "you". I appreciate the latitude this gives me, and it allows me to avoid offending people by addressing them by the wrong grammatical form.

My only saving grace in languages like Italian and French is that I speak so badly, it should be obvious that my mistakes are a result of speaking a language badly, and not intentionally causing offense by calling someone by the wrong pronoun.

And just because the speakers of some languages wish we had a certain grammatical feature in Esperanto, doesn't mean we need it. I fail to see how it is so complicated not to have a distinction between formal and informal "you". English has pronouns it, he, and she, but it seems perfectly logical and fine that Chinese has only one pronoun for all three. I do not find that to be complicated or difficult at all. Maybe it's just that Americans are more informal and less hung up on social class than some other countries, but I don't see the lack of formal and informal "you" to be a problem at all.

Responding to Frankouche, my point was that even with a plural "you", you *still* have to specify who you mean by "plural you". I tell someone "You [plural] have to do that". Who do I mean? You and one person, you and your ten friends, you and the company you represent? I still have to specify. Adding the plural marker has not gotten me very far. I still need to add more information to be more specific about who is included in that pronoun "you".

The word ci did not appear in Zamenhof's list of pronouns in his unua libro, but I have seen it in a Linguaphone textbook published around 1930, so it appears to have entered the language by then. Perhaps French and German speakers use it for the same purposes that they use tu and du. But Piron was a French speaker, and I don't remember seeing it in any of his simpler writings, which are the ones I have read. English speakers won't miss it, having dropped the second person singular for the most part.

erinja:You conveniently left out

I left nothing out, out of convenience. I try to keep citations to a minimum because of lernu's message length constraints. I trust anybody can read the original message whenever they want to.

if there are no specific pronouns, it is easier to find a neutral middle ground between formal and informal.

It is easy because under such conditions, it's basically the only choice.

But for the vast majority of cases, I can use neutral sentences, speaking in a respectful way without adding specific indicators of formality or informality.

I agree that formality is not needed most of the time when using Esperanto. However sometimes it is. There are those who feel that it would be easier to show formality with a tool precisely designed for that, even if only to be used in extremely solemn occasions, and even though I wouldn't change the language, I have to agree with them.

In those languages you are *forced* to decide whether to speak formally or informally to someone.

Not exactly. I can only speak for Italian, but the occasions where formality is required and the ways to express it have changed *a lot* during the years and I suspect that part of it is out of changes in our society.

Esperanto is designed to be neutral, and I respect the idea, even though its factual neutrality might be discussed. I'm not saying Esperanto should be more like Italian. I'm saying that, for a not insignificant part of the speakers, it would be useful to have a specific and easily recognizable manner to express formality or informality, possibly *along with* neutrality. I have to agree, it would be useful.

Perhaps with time a solution will emerge, using the tools that Esperanto already provides. I would be fine with that. But in a way, it would go in the direction I am pointing: that there is, at least for somebody, the need for a recognizable way to express formality.

And just because the speakers of some languages wish we had a certain grammatical feature in Esperanto, doesn't mean we need it.

Well, I only said that I agree with those who say it would be useful in a few cases, which are considered important enough to deserve a more universally recognized way to express formality. Personally, I think that Esperanto already has a lot of things that I do not need, but of course I won't ever propose to get rid of them. With the same rationale, I might agree with someone spotting a deficiency in the language, but I won't propose to reform it just because of that.

I fail to see how it is so complicated not to have a distinction between formal and informal "you".

In more than one occasion I wished I had a way to distinguish the two "vi", from singular and plural. Especially in writing. All the other solutions are IMHO a little patchy. I am OK with using them (as long as I am understood, that's fine) but I do not find them 100% satisfactory. As for the problem of formality, I never happened to feel such a limit because my usage of Esperanto almost never requires any formality. Which does not mean nobody ever should need it.

English has pronouns it, he, and she, but it seems perfectly logical and fine that Chinese has only one pronoun for all three.

I agree, but gender is not the issue (you might remember me saying something very similar a few messages ago; I'm sure you didn't forget out of convenience... ).

even with a plural "you", you *still* have to specify who you mean by "plural you".

Personally I found that the lack of a distinction between a singular and plural "vi" *forced* me to bulkier explanations, quite a few times. The finer problems you express in your post are all true and worthy of attention, but in my experience they would represent a negligible percentage of the larger problem, at least for the average speaker.

I am aware that I can find alternate routes if I really want to ("unu el la gepatroj" instead of the single word "parent", "vi unu kaj vi multaj", instead of the single words... well, you get my point) and I am very happy with the language, overall. This doesn't mean that it's perfect and that I can't agree with those who say it isn't.

There have been many discussions over the decades about changes to Esperanto. I've become more interested in why these dicussions take place, than what is discussed. We (ordinary folks)seldom argue about fine points of language. (My favorite peeve is the use of taste when one means flavor, although many of the languages brought to Usono have only one word for both.) English is used and abused around the world, and I have little to do with its vocabulary or grammar. Even the vocabulary and grammar I learned in school has disappeared. (No split infinitives, a mango was what others call a bell pepper.)

Esperanto is different in this respect: each beginner knows that it is one's own new language. Everyone knows we can invent words by putting roots together. Escaping the bonds of the native language into the freedom of Esperanto, one begins to see how to improve it. The initiator of Esperanto said that one should not intrude one's culture into the sphere of others. I don't practice my religion in your face, I don't speak English, unless we have a reason to. (Today I'm lazy, so I'm writing in English. I should be ambitious and do this in Es-po.) It doesn't matter what Chinese or Bantu do with their language. I think the internal idea is not to put my, or you-alls, formality or informality on others. Our purpose is to learn to come into respectful accord with whatever the other persons are doing, Cxu ne? The initiator had a purpose, to boil it all down to the simplest forms. He saw utility in a declension of personal pronouns, and he kept it simple, with just enough utility (My opinion).

Perhaps while we are struggling to improve Esperanto, we should turn to one of the oldest spoken, literary languages: Sanskrit. Or Classical Greek. Let's introduce the set, singular, dual, plural. That will solve the proble of addressing you two. There is a beautiful Sanskrit hymn that refers to the teacher's sandles. The form is dual, two sandles, one right and one left. Hard to express in Espo or English. (Oh, I just say all this in sarcasm.)

I am still struggling to gain fluency in Esperanto. I enjoy the fine points, but I appreciate introspection as to where my opinions come from.

Two observations may be relevant here. Firstly, ci is in the Universala Vortaro, in the webpages of the Akademio de Esperanto. Here's the entry:

ci tu, toi, | thou | du | ты | ty.

Therefore, the official status of ci as a part of the language is not in doubt.

Secondly, however, in Kalocsay and Waringhien's Plena Analiza Gramatiko, in a note at the end of para 45 we find (I translate): 'There exists in the Fundamenta Vortaro a separate pronoun for the second person singular: ci, ciu, je ci. But "in the language itself it is almost never used" (Zamenhof, "Dua Libro"); it is found sometimes in poetry, for translating a nuance in a national language, and in the phrase; ci-diri al iu.'

A similar sentiment is expressed in section 11.1 of PMEG, just below the table of the usual pronouns (I translate): 'In theory there exists also the pronoun ci.. but ci is almost never used. Vi is used both for the singular and the plural.'

PS. On a Hungarian Esperanto website (which is against ci, terming it senvalora balasto), we find the following, which seems to me to clarify the meaning of ci-diri al iu by showing the phrase in context. My suggested translation follows, and in both cases I have made the slant of the crucial phrase contrast with the surrounding font for emphasis:
'De tempo al tempo kelkaj esperantistoj plendas, ke ne konvenas alparoli beston per la formala, Ä entila pronomo "vi", do ili insistas ci-diri al hundoj, katoj kaj eble ankaÅ­ al ratoj.'
'From time to time some Esperantists complain that it is not convenient to address animals by the formal, polite pronoun "you", using thou in addressing dogs, cats and possible rats as well.'

It seems that the people who want a "plural-you", speak languages that have a "plural-you".

It seems that the people who are fine with a "you" that serves both singular and plural, speak languages that have a "you" that serves both singular and plural.

It seems that the people who do not want adjectives that agree in number and case with the nouns speak languages in which the adjectives do not agree in number and case with the nouns.

It seems that the people who are bothered most by the accusative ending, speak languages that do not have an accusative ending.

And so on...

Do we want to speak Esperanto, or do we want to speak Esperantized versions of our native tongues? Personally, I vote for Esperanto.