.;uukyfkjtdlugh;'oiyhlkhfuyfg;ohg

rikforto:

The best course is probably to be direct and brief. "I find it uncomfortable when you use the intimate pronoun with me; I don't feel we have that kind of relationship. Please use vi."

and I will answer with "Show me where intimacy is in the OFFICIAL definition of "ci" and where Zamenhof said it was inherent in the word."

rikforto: "I respect your religious practices have made you take a different course,

and I will answer with "But thee doesn't, the fact that thee is asking me to violate those beliefs shows this."

rikforto:"...but ci is only marginally used by most Esperantists. Could you please by mindful of that when commenting, especially to new learners?" "This isn't an issue of your religious beliefs, but rather a matter of [X]."

and I will answer with "But it IS an issue of my religious beliefs. Saying otherwise shows that "I respect your religious practices......" is also a lie."

what I see in thy statements above is "our delicate little feelings are more important than your right to practice your religion".

How very liberal and tolerant of you.

There's a word for acting in contradiction to one's words, all the while pretending to be sincere.

orthohawk1:

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???

Clearly you failed to read/understand what the quote was in relation to. I suggest you take a deep breath, go and re-read the post and then come back with a sensible response, if you have one.

tommjames:

orthohawk1:

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???

Clearly you failed to read/understand what the quote was in relation to. I suggest you take a deep breath, go and re-read the post and then come back with a sensible response, if you have one.

I see nothing in Daniel's post that indicates he forces others to use "ci" either (or "thee" in English; quakers don't force non-quakers to use Plain Speech or dress plainly. For the record)
now, if thee has a sensible response I'll be glad to read it.

orthohawk1:I see nothing in Daniel's post that indicates he forces others to use "ci" either

The statement was not related to use of 'ci', and I do not know why you've assumed it was.

This is what it was in reference to:

Polaris:Regardless, I wouldn't attempt to constrain others into following suit with me--and I certainly wouldn't feel constrained to follow suit with anybody else--regarding gender-specific pronoun use.

As you will see if you read the post, we were discussing your views on gendered pronouns with respect to non-binary people - nothing to do with 'ci'. So your accusation that I am lying is unfounded.

Tempodivalse is right though, these pointless meanderings have well run their course, so I'll bail out at this point.

Welcome back to the forum. I hope you don't go off the rails again.

tommjames:

orthohawk1:I see nothing in Daniel's post that indicates he forces others to use "ci" either

The statement was not related to use of 'ci', and I do not know why you've assumed it was.

Thank God for ambiguity, huh? makes it so easy to back pedal.

tommjames:Welcome back to the forum. I hope you don't go off the rails again.

as long as I don't get pushed off 'em.........

tommjames:

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.

While I'm sorry you feel that way, I'll stick by what I said about this being a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that I have done my homework, and you're right--the reality IS obvious and easily demonstrable.

tommjames:

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.

Then why do you continue to comment on it? I'm not only asking you, I'm asking the individual who expressed offense, and I'm asking the entire group. As far as I'm concerned, in the absence of some connotation or value-laden meaning behind the request, it is unreasonable to insist that someone change the way he habitually addresses others and to make an exception just for you, particularly if the habit stems from religious conviction. I wanted to know if there was more to it than that---and apparently, from what other members of the group are contributing to the discussion, there is, indeed, more involved than simply "I prefer to be called...."

rikforto:

Polaris:

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.

Like I said, Rikforto, what you just contributed makes sense. I was unaware that the use of "ci" had any servile, adult-to-child, or intimate connotation. Now I know that there may be something else at play here, and thank you for going to the trouble to look this up.

Polaris:

rikforto:

Polaris:

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.

Like I said, Rikforto, what you just contributed makes sense. I was unaware that the use of "ci" had any servile, adult-to-child, or intimate connotation. Now I know that there may be something else at play here, and thank you for going to the trouble to look this up.

It has that connotation only in the minds of people who are determined to put it there.
As I have said before, Zamenhof himself said that any nuance other than "singular" comes from influence from other languages......and as others have so eloquently stated here, Esperanto is Esperanto, not (insert language) with Esperanto word endings.

orthohawk1:
It has that connotation only in the minds of people who are determined to put it there.
As I have said before, Zamenhof himself said that any nuance other than "singular" comes from influence from other languages......and as others have so eloquently stated here, Esperanto is Esperanto, not (insert language) with Esperanto word endings.

I tend to put a lot of stock into what has been laid down in the PMEG. Whatever the connotation, however, "ci" is not (and never has been) a pronoun for everyday use. By the same token, "vi" has never been exclusively plural, either. From what I can gather, the word "ci" is used to give something a special, poetic, "old-world" quality, much as people NOWADAYS might use "thou shalt" or "thou hast" to achieve the same effect.