Tempodivalse:

The problem isn't with "ci" in and of itself, rather the inherent untruthfulness of using a plural pronoun to refer to one person.

Vi can be both a singular or plural pronoun. There is nothing grammatically incorrect with using vi in the singular - Esperanto isn't Hawaiian.

the origin of the pronoun cannot be ignored. But aside from that, Zamenhof himself introduced "ci" specifically as the singular 2nd person pronoun. Now, WHY he did so is actually irrelevant; "ci" exists as the 2ps pronoun (thereby rendering the "singular meaning" of vi null and void);

There will always be those who use "ci" (including those who (however wrongly) attach to it some special nuance). Yes, there will be some who don't like it. Well, too bad. They can take it up with la Majstro when they meet in the afterlife.

orthohawk:
the origin of the pronoun cannot be ignored. But aside from that, Zamenhof himself introduced "ci" specifically as the singular 2nd person pronoun. Now, WHY he did so is actually irrelevant; "ci" exists as the 2ps pronoun (thereby rendering the "singular meaning" of vi null and void);

There will always be those who use "ci" (including those who (however wrongly) attach to it some special nuance). Yes, there will be some who don't like it. Well, too bad. They can take it up with la Majstro when they meet in the afterlife.

Why is it that the origin of "vi" cannot be ignored, but the origin of "ci" is actually irrelevant?

orthohawk:"ci" exists as the 2ps pronoun

No, it does not exist as the 2nd person singular pronoun, it exists as a 2nd person singular pronoun - one which hardly anybody uses. So to pretend the singular meaning of 'vi' is "null and void" is totally unfounded. You're simply inventing arbitrary grammar rules.

tommjames:

orthohawk:"ci" exists as the 2ps pronoun

No, it does not exist as the 2nd person singular pronoun, it exists as a 2nd person singular pronoun - one which hardly anybody uses. So to pretend the singular meaning of 'vi' is "null and void" is totally unfounded. You're simply inventing arbitrary grammar rules.

Ci means 2nd person singular, nothing else. There is no need for another word with that meaning, so yes, that meaning of "vi" can be seen as now null and void, like it or not.

now go back and read the rest of my post and start dealing with it. I will not be bullied. If anyone is offended by being called "ci" (or "thee" for that matter,) that person can avail himself of a very simple solution: don't speak to me.

orthohawk:Ci means 2nd person singular, nothing else. There is no need for another word with that meaning, so yes, that meaning of "vi" can be seen as now null and void, like it or not.

Oh come off it. By this logic we should get rid of all synonyms from the language. Do you suggest we do this? And if not, why not?

orthohawk:now go back and read the rest of my post

There is no need for me to do this - I read your post and I understand it.

orthohawk:and start dealing with it

I have no idea what you mean here. Are you suggesting that I've taken undue offence to your arbitrary grammatical rules and linguistic foibles? If so it is you who needs to re-read - no offence taken here. I'm just responding to incorrect statements on your part, regarding the language.

orthohawk:I will not be bullied.

And I will not be slandered - I am not bullying you, and I resent the unfounded accusation. You should take it back.

orthohawk:If anyone is offended by being called "ci" (or "thee" for that matter) that person can avail himself of a very simple solution: don't speak to me.

I don't know why you're steering the conversation back towards offence taking. We were discussing whether the singular 'vi' is null and void. Whether or not anyone is offended by your view on that is irrelevant.

In 12 years, I haven't encountered any Esperanto speakers that use "ci" with me in conversations. It would strike me as unusual if they did. Going to any Esperanto chat or group or meetup would likely give the same impression. I just don't understand the insistence on "ci" here.

orthohawk:I will not be bullied. If anyone is offended by being called "ci" (or "thee" for that matter,) that person can avail himself of a very simple solution: don't speak to me.

I hate to break it to you, but you are being the bully here. Not to mention continuing to insist on derailing this thread after the question has been asked and answered. The question was "Do you use ci?" Your answer is obviously "yes". You have already explained why you use it and for what purpose. The rest of this vitriol is entirely off-topic. If you really want to have this argument (again), feel free to make your own thread on the subject, where those who wish to argue can join you, and those who wish to use your simple solution and not speak to you can opt to ignore your thread.

Ci means 2nd person singular, nothing else. There is no need for another word with that meaning, so yes, that meaning of "vi" can be seen as now null and void, like it or not.

This is factually incorrect.

As I recall, Zamenhof included "ci" as a purely poetic form, in an attempt to mimic some of archaic "thou", such as when addressing a deity. There is some indication that he later regretted including it at all, and he always strongly advised speakers to avoid it.

However, even in archaic, poetic literature like La Biblio, Eneido, and Iliado, it is wholly absent - and has been from the earliest days of Esperanto.

I think it is uncontroversial to say that ci is one of the very few Fundamento words which is totally moribund, to the point that its use in almost any context is stylistically erroneous.

If you insist upon using the form anyway - well, your prerogative, although you are increasingly making yourself look unreasonable. The whole issue is really quite trifling.

Tempodivalse:I think it is uncontroversial to say that ci is one of the very few Fundamento words which is totally moribund, to the point that its use in almost any context is stylistically erroneous.

Is it even a Fundamento word? The Vikipedio article Pronomo seems to think it is nefundamenta.

Breto:

Tempodivalse:I think it is uncontroversial to say that ci is one of the very few Fundamento words which is totally moribund, to the point that its use in almost any context is stylistically erroneous.

Is it even a Fundamento word? The Vikipedio article Pronomo seems to think it is nefundamenta.

It's in the vortaro:

"ci tu, toi, | thou | du | ты | ty."

and is also mentioned in chapter 16 of the ekzercaro:

"Mi legas. ― Ci skribas (anstataŭ „ci” oni uzas ordinare „vi”)"