Polaris:

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.

Hm. Well, Bertilo, it appears, is one of those "determined" people.

Polaris: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.

Sigh. Everyone seems to be convinced that I believe this (and teach it; oh the horror!!) but that is not true. Where they get this idea (other than the obvious; their false assumptions) I will never understand. I have never once claimed that it is of general use. I have never once taught it. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

In fact, when teaching the pronouns, I specifically tell my students that I personally use it out of religious conviction, but it is not in general use and unless they have a specific reason for using it, they should not do so.

I realize people are tiring of this issue. Well, guess what? SO AM I!!! All I can say, is if people are tired of hearing about it, they should 1. refrain from misrepresenting my part in it and/or 2. start calling out others who misrepresent my part in it.

As I said on my blog the other day: If you must "warn" komencantoj, it is sufficient to say "'ci' is not used in everyday Esperanto even though you may meet some who insist on using it. It is equivalent to the singular use of 'vi'." Anything more than that is unnecessary, and, depending on what you say/how you say it, can be considered bullying or even discriminatory. So-called samideanoj should behave better than that.

Polaris:I'll stick by what I said about this being a topic for another thread.

Don't worry about that, this thread was a total farce from the get-go. No chance of going 'off topic' on this one I feel...

Polaris:Suffice it to say that I have done my homework

If that is indeed the case there can be no excuse for your denial of a 'non-binary' person. I mean come on - the first line from the Wikipedia article on Intersex:

"Intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female"

This is not difficult stuff to grasp folks. Yes, non-binary people exist - get over it!

Polaris: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

I would think that erinja has her reasons for wishing to be addressed with the correct pronoun, as opposed to a barely used experimental pronoun that means god knows what. Perhaps PM her if you're that curious about it? That would seem to be more likely to yield the information you seek than endlessly going around the block with me in this wholly degenerated thread.

tommjames:

Polaris:Suffice it to say that I have done my homework

If that is indeed the case there can be no excuse for your denial of a 'non-binary' person. I mean come on - the first line from the Wikipedia article on Intersex:

"Intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female"

This is not difficult stuff to grasp folks. Yes, non-binary people exist - get over it!

It is a little more complicated than just intersex. Non-binary identification is (at least in part) separate from biological sex. Intersex people can and do identify along the whole gender spectrum, while many non-binary people are of one of the binary sexes. (To whit, none of the non-binary persons I know are open about having an intersex condition, while the one openly intersex person I know identifies as a woman. Obvious caveats about small samples, privacy, and anecdote apply.)

Somewhat crudely, sex speaks to the body while gender speaks to the mind. Pronouns therefore should respect the wishes of the person, not any physical appraisal you might have made.

rikforto:It is a little more complicated than just intersex. Non-binary identification is (at least in part) separate from biological sex.

Indeed. I just used intersex as the more obvious example of a non-binary condition, in order to make the point. Unfortunately some people just can't seem to see past biology - they think anything else is just 'in the mind' frivolity or a misguided aspiration to be something you're not.

rikforto:Somewhat crudely, sex speaks to the body while gender speaks to the mind. Pronouns therefore should respect the wishes of the person, not any physical appraisal you might have made.

Yes, I completely agree.

Again - "ci" is not congruent with "thou" for various reasons, primarily because it was never used to begin with, and its presence in the Fundamento is something of an oddity (given Z's attempts to discourage anyone from using it).

Compare this to "thou" which, despite its obsolescence, has a long history and is well-represented in literature up to around the early 18th century.

In fact, as tommjames alludes, it's not even clear what exactly "ci" is supposed to express - is it neutral? is it a term of endearment? of insult? Even highly proficient speakers can't agree - as we've seen in this thread and PMEG.

orthohawk1:

Polaris:

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.

Hm. Well, Bertilo, it appears, is one of those "determined" people.

Polaris: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.

Sigh. Everyone seems to be convinced that I believe this (and teach it; oh the horror!!) but that is not true. Where they get this idea (other than the obvious; their false assumptions) I will never understand. I have never once claimed that it is of general use. I have never once taught it. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

In fact, when teaching the pronouns, I specifically tell my students that I personally use it out of religious conviction, but it is not in general use and unless they have a specific reason for using it, they should not do so.

I realize people are tiring of this issue. Well, guess what? SO AM I!!! All I can say, is if people are tired of hearing about it, they should 1. refrain from misrepresenting my part in it and/or 2. start calling out others who misrepresent my part in it.

As I said on my blog the other day: If you must "warn" komencantoj, it is sufficient to say "'ci' is not used in everyday Esperanto even though you may meet some who insist on using it. It is equivalent to the singular use of 'vi'." Anything more than that is unnecessary, and, depending on what you say/how you say it, can be considered bullying or even discriminatory. So-called samideanoj should behave better than that.

Se vi volas uzi "ci", uzu "ci". Mi ne komprenas tion kiel insulton. Temas pri via persona prefero. Bone! Esperanto ne estas leĝa devo. Ĝi estas libera lingvo. Zamenhof donacis ĝin al la mondo, do al ni ĉiuj. Mi estas senfine dankema al li por tio. Se estas aliaj homoj kiuj volas uzi "ci" ke ili faru. Se ili ne volas, sed preferas uzi "vi", estu! Mi ne komprenas la tutan diskuton. La ĝenerala uzo solvos ĉiujn problemojn.

rikforto:

Somewhat crudely, sex speaks to the body while gender speaks to the mind. Pronouns therefore should respect the wishes of the person, not any physical appraisal you might have made.

I'd say more accurately that it's not a matter of it being one part a body problem and the other being a mind problem; that take on the issue is what feeds the views of religious idiots who think people are mentally ill because they suffer gender dysphoria. The entire issue is a biological phenomenon (female brain development with superficial male sexual development...or vice-versa).

I don't even want to give religionists an opportunity to imagine they have a worthy opinion on this matter when they are approaching it from the position of a worthless, clapped out ideology.

I don't even want to give religionists an opportunity to imagine they have a worthy opinion on this matter when they are approaching it from the position of a worthless, clapped out ideology.

"Ignorance is not an opinion." - Dilbert

Vestitor:

rikforto:

Somewhat crudely, sex speaks to the body while gender speaks to the mind. Pronouns therefore should respect the wishes of the person, not any physical appraisal you might have made.

I'd say more accurately that it's not a matter of it being one part a body problem and the other being a mind problem; that take on the issue is what feeds the views of religious idiots who think people are mentally ill because they suffer gender dysphoria. The entire issue is a biological phenomenon (female brain development with superficial male sexual development...or vice-versa).

I don't even want to give religionists an opportunity to imagine they have a worthy opinion on this matter when they are approaching it from the position of a worthless, clapped out ideology.

I'll deal with the incorrect views of "religionists" (or anyone else) when they are voiced. As it stands, the mind/body divide is a useful first approximation of what is going on with gender and sex.

I also hail from the nuerodiversity camp. Just because something can be defined as unusual, it doesn't follow that it is inherently damaging or that the best course is to conform to societal norms. In the case of gender dysphoria and related "gender troubles", we're better served to change society so that it is not abusive to those people rather than trying to cure or, worse, exorcise it.

Tempodivalse:Again - "ci" is not congruent with "thou" for various reasons, primarily because it was never used to begin with, and its presence in the Fundamento is something of an oddity (given Z's attempts to discourage anyone from using it).

Compare this to "thou" which, despite its obsolescence, has a long history and is well-represented in literature up to around the early 18th century.

In fact, as tommjames alludes, it's not even clear what exactly "ci" is supposed to express - is it neutral? is it a term of endearment? of insult? Even highly proficient speakers can't agree - as we've seen in this thread and PMEG.

For someone who claims to be tired of this issue, thee never seems to tire of harping on it.