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

I'm a little tired of the topic, sure, but in light of the PMEG quote, also interested in the ambiguity inherent in ci, and to what extent the pronoun can be used legitimately - independent of the little squabble we had (or are still having).

To respond to Polaris et al. - I think the level of (dis)respect or familiarity associated with "ci" is largely a matter of context, much like in other languages (e.g., you wouldn't use ty with your elders in Russian). PMEG is right to point out that it's hard tell what the association should be, due to the pronoun's obscurity.

Now, I think that's exhausted most of what I can possibly think of about "ci".

tommjames:... 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.

I am skipping over everything you just said about your "non-binary people" assertions because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread.

As far as you supposing Erin has her reasons and inviting me to PM her goes, Tomm, nobody asked you what Erin thought. I, too, suppose Erin had her reasons--that's why I asked. And yes, if I had wanted, I could have PM'd her. Instead, I chose to make some inquiries on a thread where the topic was already under discussion...that okay with you? In doing so, a lot of useful, enlightening information has come out of the discussion, and I'm glad I asked. But it's like there is this odd undercurrent with you regarding this discussion---one that essentially says "thou shalt not question someone's stated preferences, nor shalt thou ask for any explanations once somebody announces 'I'm offended'".

If you have nothing further to contribute to the discussion, that's fine--I don't need your approval to ask others if they do. Erin doesn't need you to speak for her; if she chooses to respond, that's up to her. And furthermore, I really don't need any pointers from you on how to go about asking others what they think. What you're essentially saying is "it's not okay for you to ask"--I do not accept that premise, and I'm not sure why you keep making it.

Polaris:I am skipping over everything you just said about your "non-binary people" assertions because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread.

Well you're right there, but then neither does the offensiveness (or otherwise) of 'ci' have anything to do with it either - the "topic" was a lot of blabber about how shameful orthohawk's treatment is this forum has been. So perhaps you would start another thread if you'd like to talk about why a single forum member prefers to be addressed with the correct pronoun?

Polaris:Tomm, nobody asked you what Erin thought.

Sorry I'm not getting you. You're suggesting people should keep their mouth shut if questions are not directly addressed to them? "Nobody asked you for your opinion" is just another way of telling someone to shut up and mind their own business, is that what you're telling me here?

Polaris:I, too, suppose Erin had her reasons

Ok, it's just you said something to the effect of "in the absence of some value-laden meaning behind the request, the request is unreasonable" with which I assumed you were referring to reasons for having the preference. If you supposed the reasons exist, I'm not sure why you would want to point out the implications of their 'absence'.

Polaris:And yes, if I had wanted, I could have PM'd her. Instead, I chose to make some inquiries on a thread where the topic was already under discussion...that okay with you?

Come off it. Nobody was discussing the reasons why erinja prefers to be addressed as 'vi' until you started fixating on it, and repeatedly (falsely) suggesting it was the pronoun itself that was found offensive instead of the flouting of the preference. I merely corrected those suggestions and offered a means of cutting through all the crap and getting the information you're after. There is nothing overly presumptuous about that, despite what you may wish to believe.

Polaris:But it's like there is this odd undercurrent with you regarding this discussion---one that essentially says "thou shalt not question someone's stated preferences

Hmm, weird. I make a suggestion that you enquire about it directly with the person in question and then you accuse me of shutting that enquiry down. I am truly perplexed.

Polaris:nor shalt thou ask for any explanations once somebody announces 'I'm offended'"

Nonsense. The explanation was already given numerous times: flouting of a request to be addressed with the correct pronoun. The question of why the request was made in the first place is a different matter, one which you're perfectly entitled to continue fixating on if you wish. I find it a bit strange, admittedly, that you continue to press this issue, but I don't think I made any kind of decree against it.

Polaris:If you have nothing further to contribute to the discussion, that's fine [..] [..]

Oh I'm happy to continue discussing this, assuming of course that you will permit me. I have the sense you're starting to get a bit hot under the collar about my continued engagement in this thread. When you start making true-but-irrelevant statements like ("I don't need your approval", "Erin doesn't need you to speak for her" etc) I see that as a sign that maybe you're determined to take things the wrong way - in which case maybe it is better if I withdraw.

Polaris:What you're essentially saying is "it's not okay for you to ask"

You really need to stop making stuff up. I have no objection to you continuing to bang on about this subject in the thread if that's what you want to do. And I guess there's a chance (a tiny one, but a chance nonetheless) of obtaining the information you're seeking direct from the horse's mouth, so by all means carry on.

Tempodivalse:
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.

It expresses what its users say it expresses. If French SATanoj use it as an intimate pronoun, for them it's an intimate pronoun. If someone uses it to express singular you, that's what it expresses from that someone's mouth/keyboard.

Now, isn't that simple?

Tempodivalse:

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

I'm a little tired of the topic, sure, but in light of the PMEG quote, also interested in the ambiguity inherent in ci, and to what extent the pronoun can be used legitimately - independent of the little squabble we had (or are still having).

To respond to Polaris et al. - I think the level of (dis)respect or familiarity associated with "ci" is largely a matter of context, much like in other languages (e.g., you wouldn't use ty with your elders in Russian). PMEG is right to point out that it's hard tell what the association should be, due to the pronoun's obscurity.

Not difficult at all:
A: "Hey, I notice you use "ci"....what exactly do you mean to express by it?"
B: (insert answer)
A: Oh, OK. Thanks.

Of course, given the reaction to the answer I've given (over and over and over again!), I can see how one could think it was difficult to ascertain.

orthohawk:It expresses what its uses say it expresses. If French SATanoj use it as an intimate pronoun, for them it's an intimate pronoun. If someone uses it to express singular you, that's what it expresses from that someone's mouth/keyboard.

Now, isn't that simple?

Simple certainly. But like any tautologous proposition it's also lacking in substance. "Words mean what they mean" doesn't really help you understand what the "what" actually is.

orthohawk1:Not difficult at all:
A: "Hey, I notice you use "ci"....what exactly do you mean to express by it?"
B: (insert answer)
A: Oh, OK. Thanks.

This is disingenuous, for the fairly obvious reason that by "difficult to know what it means" PMEG is referring to the meaning of the word per se, not a meaning that can be ascertained in an isolated context by explicit enquiry.

I am away from home this weekend attending an event and I am therefore not online too much (also, I see that a lot of discussion happened over shabbat, when I don't use my computer). Anyone who responds to this will not receive a response from me anytime soon.

I'd rather be addressed using standard Esperanto and not with crippled, abnormal grammar that pointedly ignores Zamenhof's own words. That's all. Like I said before, I'm fine with being called "ci" once or twice by someone who doesn't know my preference, but after being politely informed of my preference, I expect normative "vi" to be used. If this is too much to ask then the person in question is probably too strange and disrespectful for me to be interested in talking to them. Based on past experience, such a person is also likely to feel comfortable making ethnic and homophobic slurs. Hearing myself referred to as "ci" grates on my ears and pisses me off so I'd just as soon not talk with a person who insists on this point. That's fine if their religion tells them they have to do it. They can do it if they want to. Just not with me, I'd frankly rather walk away and talk to someone whose religion doesn't forbid them from having a normal conversation.

Anyone who has additional questions to me on this point can message me privately, I think I've been quite clear and it is not my job to convince other people of the justifiability of my preferences. I truly could not care less if other people think I'm insane for being unwilling to indulge those who intentionally cripple their grammar, for whatever reason.

tommjames:

orthohawk:It expresses what its uses say it expresses. If French SATanoj use it as an intimate pronoun, for them it's an intimate pronoun. If someone uses it to express singular you, that's what it expresses from that someone's mouth/keyboard.

Now, isn't that simple?

Simple certainly. But like any tautologous proposition it's also lacking in substance. "Words mean what they mean" doesn't really help you understand what the "what" actually is.

Except that thee has misread my intent: Words mean what the people that USE them say they mean.

tommjames:

orthohawk1:Not difficult at all:
A: "Hey, I notice you use "ci"....what exactly do you mean to express by it?"
B: (insert answer)
A: Oh, OK. Thanks.

This is disingenuous, for the fairly obvious reason that by "difficult to know what it means" PMEG is referring to the meaning of the word per se, not a meaning that can be ascertained in an isolated context by explicit enquiry.

Yes: 2nd person singular.

erinja:I am away from home this weekend attending an event and I am therefore not online too much (also, I see that a lot of discussion happened over shabbat, when I don't use my computer). Anyone who responds to this will not receive a response from me anytime soon.

I'd rather be addressed using standard Esperanto and not with crippled, abnormal grammar that pointedly ignores Zamenhof's own words. That's all. Like I said before, I'm fine with being called "ci" once or twice by someone who doesn't know my preference, but after being politely informed of my preference, I expect normative "vi" to be used.

so in other words, thee expects others to go against their religious precepts for thy convenience. I hope thee never goes to dinner at someone's house lest thee get the same treatment.

erinja:If this is too much to ask then the person in question is probably too strange and disrespectful for me to be interested in talking to them. Based on past experience, such a person is also likely to feel comfortable making ethnic and homophobic slurs. Hearing myself referred to as "ci" grates on my ears and pisses me off so I'd just as soon not talk with a person who insists on this point.

In other words, "I am no better than a toddler since my actions are determined by my emotions rather than by respect and tolerance for others". Thanks for admitting that.

erinja:That's fine if their religion tells them they have to do it. They can do it if they want to. Just not with me, I'd frankly rather walk away and talk to someone whose religion doesn't forbid them from having a normal conversation.

In other words thee is one of those who hold no respect for others' religious practices (but I daresay insist that others respect thine).

erinja:Anyone who has additional questions to me on this point can message me privately, I think I've been quite clear and it is not my job to convince other people of the justifiability of my preferences.

That's a good attitude to have since I have yet to see any justifiability IN thy preferences.

As anticipated, you have fallen back on a narrative of religious discrimination. Let me say, emphatically, that if you put your religion ahead of the people you interact with, then you cannot be surprised when those same people are affronted by being a low priority for you. When you habitually fail to take into account how others feel, you can scarcely pretend to be affronted when they reciprocate.