annadahlqvist:A quite straightforward question, what is the difference between ci and vi?
Is ci oldfashioned or a way to rule out the plural "you" or why are there two words?

The explanation I read in the French coursebook "L'esperanto sans peine" (Esperanto without toil) from the Assimil series is that "ci" is used as an informal equivalent of "vi". According to that book, they would respectively correspond to "tu" and "vous" in French, "vous" being the pronoun used when:

1- Adressing a single locutor politely;
2- Adressing a group of people.

Being that "you" is the pronoun most used whether you are adressing someone informally, politely, or collectively, it's not surprising that it's a tad bit harder to explain.

L'esperanto sans peine is wrong. It is taking a French rule and applying it to Esperanto.

We do not use the word "ci" in Esperanto except in poetry - period. It's true that it's a singular form of "you", but it's treated as an archaic usage - as if we were to start saying "thee" and "thou" in English.

It's treated as archaic although it was never ever widely used in Esperanto. It has always been considered a somewhat poetic option.

"Ci" is not used for informal situations - it's not used ever, except in poetry. Use "vi" for all forms of "you" in everyday Esperanto, both singular and plural, both informal and formal, both polite and rude and everything in between.

erinja:L'esperanto sans peine is wrong. It is taking a French rule and applying it to Esperanto.

We do not use the word "ci" in Esperanto except in poetry - period. It's true that it's a singular form of "you", but it's treated as an archaic usage - as if we were to start saying "thee" and "thou" in English.

It's treated as archaic although it was never ever widely used in Esperanto. It has always been considered a somewhat poetic option.

"Ci" is not used for informal situations - it's not used ever, except in poetry. Use "vi" for all forms of "you" in everyday Esperanto, both singular and plural, both informal and formal, both polite and rude and everything in between.

Yeah, but if "L'esperanto sans peine" was applying a French rule and applying it to Esperanto, it would've had a plethora of choices to exemplify "ci" as a poetic or archaic effect with a French example, and certainly not something as common as "tu" in French.

On the other hand, J.C.Well's Esperanto dictionary does support what you say.

Either way, I might just start using "ci" for provocative effect Call it a linguistic rebellion; I do that in Armenian as well

Thanks for the clarification though

Uvi:Yeah, but if "L'esperanto sans peine" was applying a French rule and applying it to Esperanto, it would've had a plethora of choices to exemplify "ci" as a poetic or archaic effect with a French example, and certainly not something as common as "tu" in French.

The whole *point* is that "tu" is common in French. That is, many speakers of French (Italian, Spanish, German, this doesn't apply to French only) cannot conceive of an inability to distinguish between formal and informal. Some people who are used to this distinction feel that they are unable to fully express themselves without this distinction. L'esperanto sans peine is catering to that sentiment. It is saying (wrongly) that Esperanto does make that distinction, and that French speakers can feel comfortable using their normal modes of speech, translated using ci and vi. The book is wrong, and we don't use "ci" in everyday Esperanto; Esperanto is spoken much more like English. I am sure that L'anglais sans peine would never imply that it's ok to translate "tu" as "thee", but somehow, some people feel that since Esperanto is an international language, they can change it according to their whims.

On the other hand, J.C.Well's Esperanto dictionary does support what you say.

And every other reliable Esperanto publication, and also the corpus of Esperanto use.

Either way, I might just start using "ci" for provocative effect Call it a linguistic rebellion; I do that in Armenian as well

There are certain non-standard forms that could be seen as "rebellious" in Esperanto, and certain other forms that are seen as "oh, poor guy, he is just a beginner and doesn't realize that he's talking wrong".

In the case of "ci", you wouldn't be seen as a rebel or a provocateur. You would be pitied as someone whose knowledge of the language was so poor that he didn't know any better than to use the wrong word.

Erinja:In the case of "ci", you wouldn't be seen as a rebel or a provocateur. You would be pitied as someone whose knowledge of the language was so poor that he didn't know any better than to use the wrong word.

Really? I would just guess that that's how the person liked to use his pronouns. It wouldn't make him seem ignorant to me--just a little stubborn or maverick. (In fact, if he gets understood, it proves he knows more than a beginner.)

jchthys:

Erinja:In the case of "ci", you wouldn't be seen as a rebel or a provocateur. You would be pitied as someone whose knowledge of the language was so poor that he didn't know any better than to use the wrong word.

Really? I would just guess that that's how the person liked to use his pronouns. It wouldn't make him seem ignorant to me--just a little stubborn or maverick. (In fact, if he gets understood, it proves he knows more than a beginner.)

Personally I'd assume the person was trying to say 'scii' and forgot the first 's', or accidentally said 'si'.
I'd actually understand someone more if they incorrectly said "tu" or "ti"

That said, I can see Erinja's point that usage of "ci" would not be normal and would likely make the other person think that you didn't have good command of the language or were using heavily influenced Esperanto (e.g. If I spoke EO with an English R and then even dropping the R after certain vowels).

It could also be like saying "vous" in English (which technically has appeared as a pronoun every now and again, mostly in texts or poetry).

I do respect Uvi's willingness to push the limits in Esperanto though

I like using "ci" which makes nervous especially english natives

Sorry Sorry

HOW CAN YOU SAY THE PHRASE "MI DIRAS AL CI KE MI VIDIS VIN HIERAUX" WITHOUT THE PRONOUN "CI"? I CAN'T DO IT. THANK YOU.

GETULS FRANCISKO

Frankouche:I like using "ci" which makes nervous especially english natives

Sorry Sorry

Francisko1:HOW CAN YOU SAY THE PHRASE "MI DIRAS AL CI KE MI VIDIS VIN HIERAUX" WITHOUT THE PRONOUN "CI"? I CAN'T DO IT. THANK YOU.

We don't use the pronoun "ci" at all. Whenever you want to use "ci", use "vi" instead.

So I would say your sentence as "Mi diras al vi ke mi vidis vin hieraŭ"

But why would you say that? When I speak to people, I don't call them "you"; I only speak to them. I would preferably say "Mi vidis vin hieraŭ"

What is the function of "ci" in your sentence?

erinja:

Francisko1:HOW CAN YOU SAY THE PHRASE "MI DIRAS AL CI KE MI VIDIS VIN HIERAUX" WITHOUT THE PRONOUN "CI"? I CAN'T DO IT. THANK YOU.

So I would say your sentence as "Mi diras al vi ke mi vidis vin hieraŭ"

But why would you say that? When I speak to people, I don't call them "you"; I only speak to them. I would preferably say "Mi vidis vin hieraŭ"

What is the function of "ci" in your sentence?

Maybe : "i tell you (my friend) that i have seen all of you yesterday", "mi diras vin (cin) ke mi vidis vin cxiujn hieraux"

That's true that, for exemple in french, we usually use this kind of phrase with the two pronouns ci/vi(plural).

An other problem is, opposite to this one, the traduction of "you" from english movies to T-V languages. Sometimes a mistake can appear and we don't know if the actor speaks to one person or a group, or if he speaks formally or not.