nornen:

I will not be bullied, woman.

Just waiting for someone to quote 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
*sits back and eats crisps*

Well, Nornen, we're not in church, the participants in this discussion are not husband and wife, and nobody is disrupting a religious service to learn anything, either---so where on earth did that comment come from? I'm not taking sides here, but making gratuitous digs at the religious views that you suppose someone holds is insulting. Could we please keep the focus on the topic of the thread?

Polaris:Perhaps I am missing something, but for the life of me, I cannot comprehend the reason behind the "heat" in this argument...

Yes, if someone went around using "ci" all the time, the rest of us would wonder what he was trying to prove because, to put it nicely, it would seem eccentric....

Hmmm... You may have answered yourself already there. There are other bits of the thread you've not acknowledged, like the implication that 'vi may have outlived its usefulness, whilst it is the actual everyday 2nd person pronoun.

I don't want to say anything else though. I agreed not to engage in any more talk about use of plain speech.

Polaris:2. Yes, if someone went around using "ci" all the time, the rest of us would wonder what he was trying to prove because, to put it nicely, it would seem eccentric....but so what? We see a lot of odd, quirky things that barely register a blip on the radar screen; how is this any different?

The individual in question finds it offensive for people to point out that persistent use of "ci" may be considered as odd, quirky, and eccentric by others (I have been yelled at before for expressing such an opinion), so please be prepared for the person in question to get upset at you for mentioning this. The individual in question seems to think we are all liars because we use "vi" in the singular, as Zamenhof intended for the language. I guess Zamenhof must be a liar in his own language? Or I guess some individuals must simply speak an "esperantido" in which everything is the same as Esperanto except the pronouns, and in this Esperantido, "vi" is plural only (rather than Esperanto's plural plus singular) and "ci" is singular. One wonders of the point of making this Esperantido since it only adds a pronoun without any real point, but there's not accounting for taste.

erinja:

Polaris:2. Yes, if someone went around using "ci" all the time, the rest of us would wonder what he was trying to prove because, to put it nicely, it would seem eccentric....but so what? We see a lot of odd, quirky things that barely register a blip on the radar screen; how is this any different?

The individual in question finds it offensive for people to point out that persistent use of "ci" may be considered as odd, quirky, and eccentric by others (I have been yelled at before for expressing such an opinion), so please be prepared for the person in question to get upset at you for mentioning this. The individual in question seems to think we are all liars because we use "vi" in the singular, as Zamenhof intended for the language. I guess Zamenhof must be a liar in his own language? Or I guess some individuals must simply speak an "esperantido" in which everything is the same as Esperanto except the pronouns, and in this Esperantido, "vi" is plural only (rather than Esperanto's plural plus singular) and "ci" is singular. One wonders of the point of making this Esperantido since it only adds a pronoun without any real point, but there's not accounting for taste.

I understand, Erin, and I agree with you--Clearly, "vi" can be singular or plural as context indicates, just like the word "you" in modern English, and it's ridiculous to assert otherwise. But prior to that facet of the discussion, you said you'd find it offensive for someone to say "ci" to you rather than "vi"---and I wanted to sort that out a little. Orthohawk's singular/plural forms discussion aside, what would you find offensive about somebody referring to you as "ci"? I'm not challenging anything, but it just seems insignificant--am I missing something? Did "ci" originally have a connotation that I'm not aware of?

Polaris: you said you'd find it offensive for someone to say "ci" to you rather than "vi"---and I wanted to sort that out a little. Orthohawk's singular/plural forms discussion aside, what would you find offensive about somebody referring to you as "ci"?

I believe people have a fundamental right to be referred to by their preferred pronoun. My pronoun is "vi". I think it's disrespectful to call a person by a different pronoun than what they've explicitly asked to be called. To me, it's akin to insisting on calling someone "Mike" when they have told you multiple times they prefer "Michael". It indicates a fundamental disrespect for the person's wishes, even though it might seem like a minor issue and even though everyone knows who they are referring to.

Why do I prefer "vi" as my pronoun? Because it's normative Esperanto. I have a high level of tolerance for beginner mistakes but when someone who knows better insists on speaking a crippled Esperanto and insisting that their crippled Esperanto is correct (and seemingly, from this discussion, that everyone else is flat out wrong by using "vi"???), at a certain point I'm going to disengage and say, you know what, if you want to speak in crippled language, whatever, go ahead and do that, but I'm just not going to engage with you anymore. Particularly in a forum full of beginners. Have a little respect, you know? Don't go around pretending like this is normal speech in front of people who are still trying to learn normal Esperanto.

This is interesting! I'm not suggesting either party should continue discussing it if they don't wanna, but I hope they'll forgive me for exploring the topic.

According to erinja (correct me if I'm wrong!), I would guess you 'own' the pronouns that are used to refer to you, rather than 'own' the pronouns that you choose to use to refer to others ('own' in terms of politeness, etc and perhaps even ethically). I would guess orthohawk holds the opposite view (again, correct me if I'm wrong!), you 'own' the pronouns you refer to others, not the ones you want others to use.

I'm not sure why either argument should necessarily be the case. The pronouns you use could be as much a part of your identity as the pronouns that you want to be used to refer to you, and vice versa. In the one case you are dictating what language other people must use, in the other you are dictating what 'name' you can use to refer to others (but importantly I think, unlike a name, it is not an arbitrary label, it does have meaning as a common part of language which will reflect the speaker's beliefs and identity).

Which could make this:

Don't go around pretending like this is normal

quite, ah, strong statement, shall we say. ^_^ I'm not sure how people would judge the relative normalness of 'ri' or 'ŝli' vs. 'ci', but are we to reject all of them in komencantejoj on this ground? I can imagine many trans, etc would be a bit annoyed! ^_^

By way of analogy from another angle, say if I'm morally opposed to the monarchy and the peerage, am I still obliged to refer to the Queen as Her Majesty and all knighted people as Sir/Ma'am, simply because they want it? Even though this would contradict my beliefs?

^ Blimey, overthinking it a little?

The simple approach would be to say Esperanto uses vi as 2nd person pronoun (singular & plural), like English uses you. That's it, vi is how one says you in Esperanto!

The rest is fluff.

Eh - Just talk like Bill Owen if you want a familiar pronoun.

(*Rubber Ducky tune*) Nora Batty, tha's the one ... tha makes my life sooo much funnn....

Bill Owen was cockney though. He speaks dodgy Yorkshire dialect in Last of the Summer Wine.

Polaris:Perhaps I am missing something,(snip) Now:

1. Why would anybody be offended at being addressed by "ci" instead of "vi"? Is there some servile connotation here that I've missed?

No, there is nothing that thee missed. I don't believe there is any offense felt. The claim is hogwash. It's a bullying tactic, plain and simple.

As thee can see in the Administrator's last post to me, I am being mocked for adhering to my religious beliefs. I highly doubt she would be so sanguine if someone mocked HER for, e.g. avoiding work on the Sabbath.