Polaris:I'm not familiar with the term "non-binary" people--never heard of such a thing, and I'm already sure I wouldn't accept the premise of the concept). I'm sure that my own insistence on calling people by their given gender (regardless of their aspirations--or even extreme efforts--to be something other than what they are) would come off to you as offensive

To me it comes off as unfortunate more than anything else, as it would when encountering any other viewpoint that denies an obvious and easily demonstrable reality, but as it happens yes I do find it offensive, in as much as you deny people their true innate essence and reduce it to no more than a lifestyle choice. I find this to be unkind and mean spirited, though perhaps forgivably so in your case as it may stem from simple ignorance about the biological reality of intersex and agender conditions. My suggestion would be to do your homework before you make these kinds of judgements about people.

Polaris:I wouldn't attempt to constrain others into following suit with me

That at least is admirable. It's a shame we cannot say the same for the OP of this thread.

Polaris:if someone is going to tell me that it's offensive to him or her, then I wanted to know what made it offensive, or what value-weight the pronoun has. If that's of no interest to you...fine...we're not all going to care about the same things.

I'm unsure why you continue to press this point when it has already been clarified (several times now) that it was use of 'ci' when it has been requested that another pronoun be used that was found to be offensive, rather than the pronoun per se. But in any case I cannot speak for others so there's little I can do to help you drill down into that topic.

The only offence I recall being mentioned with regards to 'ci' was that of being ignored when you request to be addressed otherwise. I maintain that without a solid reason (such as perhaps a religious obligation) one engages in offensive behaviour by flouting that request.

IMO it would be completely otherwise if the request were to use a nonstandard word to address someone. That would indeed be an odd request that would require some explanation, but in this case the request is simply to speak normally, so I cannot see what the problem is.

Polaris:

rikforto:PMEG is online! My day is made!

Ci estas unu-nombra alparola pronomo (kiu tute ne montras sekson). Ci kaj cia ekzistas nur teorie, kaj estas preskaŭ neniam praktike uzataj. Eblus imagi ci kiel pure unu-nombran vi, aŭ kiel intiman familiaran (unu-nombran) vi, aŭ eĉ kiel insultan (unu-nombran) vi.

Ci is a singular personal pronoun (which does not indicate gender). Ci and cia exist only in theory, and are almost never used in practice. It is possible to imagine ci as purely singular vi, or as a singular, intimate, and familiar vi, or even as an insulting, singular vi.

So even discounting Erinja's insight that this is about respecting the preferences of people you talk to---which you should not---it seems the authoritative sources on the matter come down against using it in general. Given its implications of intimacy or superiority, it seems an odd choice to try to change the usage beyond marginal.

Okay, that makes sense. I just recently saw this myself---needless to say, using ci is not the same as using thou or thee.

I am a bit perplexed by this conclusion. Thou is a very-near translation for the Romantic and Slavic pronouns ci was invented to serve in translation.

As for your continued need to "drill down" on why someone might object to being called a child, servant, or close friend or intimate of a person who they are not, I would think that obvious.

DuckFiasco:Whether Esperanto ci/vi was meant to mimic tu/vous or not, it's not how it's used today. I have yet to be called "ci" in conversation online or elsewhere, but "tu" is very commonplace.

Has thee not ever read conversations between me and others??

Thee should come to one of the Eastern Iowa Esperanto Society's meet-ups; thee'll hear "ci" a lot.

oh, and nobody gets offended or spouts off about how it's "wrong" and "faux-Esperanto" or other such nonsense.

Maybe thee would hear/read it more if people weren't treated like lepers for using it.

Tempodivalse:

Those that prefer to differentiate between the singular and the plural can adopt vu (second person singular, formal) and tu (second person singular, familiar) from Ido.

The overwhelming majority of Esperantists have no problem at all with the ambiguity of vi, to such an extent that any "alternate" pronouns will inevitably carry a risk of confusion or unintelligibility.

As an analogy, imagine if I'd proposed a new pronoun "iwe" for English, to mean "exclusive we", that is, I and some other people, but not my interlocutor, because I prefer to be able to differentiate.

The problem is, nobody's heard of that term before, so every time I use "iwe" I will be met with confusion - what exactly am I trying to express?

The difference is that "iwe" is not found in any dictionary of the English language. "Ci" (whether anyone likes it or not) IS a part of Esperanto and is in the dictionary (at least a good one). Or the interlocutor can always ask.

Tempodivalse: I just get a little tired of hearing reform proposals.)

It's a good thing none of you "more Zamenhof than thou (no pun intended)" types weren't around for the 9 oficialaj aldonoj.

tommjames:

Polaris:I wouldn't attempt to constrain others into following suit with me

That at least is admirable. It's a shame we cannot say the same for the OP of this thread.

I am getting really sick of this lie being bandied about by people that know better. Read very carefully: I. HAVE. NEVER. SAID. OTHERS. MUST. USE. CI. EVER.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS???

rikforto:

As for your continued need to "drill down" on why someone might object to being called a child, servant, or close friend or intimate of a person who they are not, I would think that obvious.

And this is just so much BS. ANYONE who has been exposed to this issue who does NOT know that my use of "ci" is nothing more than distinguishing singular from plural is either living under a rock or else being so disingenuous as to being a bully.

erinja:We can all just ignore it but I don't love the idea of people going around telling beginners that it's normal and "fundamental" to use "ci" in everyday speech.

One more time: I am getting really sick of this lie being bandied about by people that bloody well know better. Read very carefully: I. HAVE. NEVER. SAID. OTHERS. MUST. USE. CI. OR. THAT. ITS. USE. IS. NORMAL...EVER.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS???

Tempodivalse:Can we agree not to provoke him? He will likely go away if he discovers he can't get a rise out of anyone. I plan not to engage with his comments (difficult, as it's quite tempting) - it's a poor use of everyone's time.

Sorry to disappoint, but as I told Erinja, I'm not going anywhere, not again. If people refuse to believe me when I say I mean no offense and that I attach no other meaning other than "singular you" to its use, I can't help that. It's their problem, not mine. i just wish people would stop lying about it.

erinja:

Tempodivalse:Can we agree not to provoke him? He will likely go away if he discovers he can't get a rise out of anyone.

Hard to say. Unfortunately, disagreeing with him is what seems to provoke him (voicing disagreement = oppressing him based on his religion) and I don't see the day where he will say his opinions and no one will raise their voice in disagreement. And I don't see the day when he doesn't say his opinions because when you insist on talking in a way that is different from everyone else, people will remark on it all the time. We can all just ignore it but I don't love the idea of people going around telling beginners that it's normal and "fundamental" to use "ci" in everyday speech.

He has a right to his opinions, a right to express his opinions, etc etc but the fact that it upsets him to see people disagree doesn't mean that it's a great idea to let him say misleading things all the time without a word.

I'm not going to waste my time refuting this post point by point (since it's obvious that certain people are ignoring such refutations), but, for the benefit of others, I will say that a bigger, steaming pile of falsehood has not been seen here in the 6+ years I've posted here.

I take comfort that at least one person here has seen what's going on.

To borrow a few words of a friend, I am appalled that so-called "samideanoj" would choose to behave in this reprehensible manner. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

The difference is that "iwe" is not found in any dictionary of the English language. "Ci" (whether anyone likes it or not) IS a part of Esperanto and is in the dictionary (at least a good one). Or the interlocutor can always ask.

To clarify - my comment was aimed at the suggestion of Bemused to use "vu" and "tu".

I think this conversation has well run its course.