Bruso:You know, there aren't a whole lot of places on the internet where there are contentious arguments about second person pronouns.

We're weird.

Very true!

erinja:

Polaris:3. I, too, was incredulous that anybody would claim that being called "ci" offended them--honestly, that just seems a little overly prickly.

FYI it's not offense at being called "ci" once. It's offense at being called "ci" after expressing a preference to this person that I would rather be called "vi". I would never be offended by a random person going around calling people "ci" and also calling me "ci", but after I express my preference to that person, I would expect them to respect it, or at least attempt to respect it, even if they mess it up sometimes. Like I said earlier, it's not an insult to call someone named Michael "Mike", but if Michael expresses to you that he'd rather be called "Michael", that is the point when it is rude to continue to refer to him as "Mike", against his wishes.

Ah, also -- I expect the individual in question to be back here in a day or two, guns blazing, as soon as his new account gets out of its new account waiting period for forum posts.

Erin, forgive my delay in responding to this, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse--furthermore, in no way do I want to seem to be siding with Orthohawk, for reasons already stated. But zeroing in on what you are saying here, this is what I don't understand:

1. I get the whole Michael / Mike thing--that's toying with somebody's name, which is personal--but a pronoun? What's offensive about that? Ci means "you"--so does vi. Using "ci" makes the person who goes around using it sound bizarre--but it's just odd, not a personal insult. If I were to go around saying "thou hast a nice house" or "thy car hath its lights on", it would be painfully obvious that either I was mentally ill or, at the very least, that I had serious social problems--but those would be statements about ME, and how I was making MYSELF look--why would YOU be offended?

2. In no way am I convinced that Orthohawk's outlandish pronoun use has any equivalence to what the Quakers once did (using "thee" all the time). But just for the purposes of an analogy, if you ever were to run into Quakers who continued that tradition, would you inform them that you prefer to be called "you"---that that's your preferred pronoun, and that being called "thee" offends you? I would hope not--that would seem like an awfully petty thing to make an issue of, given that the word "thee" is simply a second person pronoun--nothing personal. By the same token, since "ci" and "vi" both mean "you", I don't get the personal affront aspect. That's why I asked the question "am I missing something?" when this first came up.

3. I can understand not wanting "ci" to look like normative Esperanto to beginners---but simply explaining what "ci" was, how it was attempted, and how it is now used (possibly with a reference to the explanation on PMEG) should clear that up in short order. If nothing else, it opens it up for discussion so those points can be clarified---so once again, I don't understand how that rises to the level of being offensive.

Anyway---just some thoughts.

Polaris:1. I get the whole Michael / Mike thing--that's toying with somebody's name, which is personal--but a pronoun? What's offensive about that? Ci means "you"--so does vi. Using "ci" makes the person who goes around using it sound bizarre--but it's just odd, not a personal insult. If I were to go around saying "thou hast a nice house" or "thy car hath it's lights on", it would be painfully obvious that either I was mentally ill or, at the very least, that I had serious social problems--but those would be statements about ME, and how I was making MYSELF look--why would YOU be offended?

There is a fairly natural analogy to he and she. How would you feel if someone, against your wishes, referred to you the wrong way?

"Ci" admittedly has a problem of intimacy, not gender, but it is very uncomfortable for someone to use language to foist closeness on someone. To essentially respond with, "Well, God feels our relationship is close enough" is no better. (He dresses it in religious obligation, but let's not lose sight of the stated reason for all of this.) It cuts the listener out of the transaction, making it clear that this isn't about you or your feelings. And there is no intimacy when someone consistently ignores you like that, making "ci" all the more inappropriate.

Is ci actually an intimate pronoun?

My understanding is that it was primarily for poetic contexts or special flavour, and wasn't necessarily supposed to mimic the familiar pronouns tu, ty in Romance/Slavic language.

Tempodivalse:Is ci actually an intimate pronoun?

My understanding is that it was primarily for poetic contexts or special flavour, and wasn't necessarily supposed to mimic the familiar pronouns tu, ty in Romance/Slavic language.

Everything I've seen says that it is for translation to mimic the Romantic/Slavic distinctions when needed. So, it's not just intimate, but also for servants and children, which is no better. But I admit to having none of the authoritative texts on Esperanto, so this is based on sources like Wikitionary. Still there does seem to be a consensus on the internet about that.

rikforto:There is a fairly natural analogy to he and she. How would you feel if someone, against your wishes, referred to you the wrong way?

I'm not following you, Rikforto--If I'm a man and you purposely call me "she", that is a personal affront. You're calling me something that I am not. Likewise, if I'm a woman and you call me "he", that is also blatantly offensive---so I really don't get the analogy at all. If two words both meant "he" or two words both meant "she"--with no real change in meaning--then what difference would it make if you used either one?

"Ci" and "vi" are essentially synonymous; both mean "you"--it's about like the difference between "woman" and "lady" or "man" and "guy" isn't it? Of course, if people are gender confused and don't want to accept what they are and expect everybody else to go along with their charade, then I can't help what offends them--that's their problem.

rikforto:
"Ci" admittedly has a problem of intimacy, not gender, but it is very uncomfortable for someone to use language to foist closeness on someone.

How so? Where is it written that "ci" is an intimate personal pronoun? If this were like the tú and Ud. difference of Spanish (or the intimate vs. polite equivalent of other languages), that would at least, explain this---but I wasn't aware that "ci" had an inherently intimate connotation.

Roch:In the lernu vortaro, at the right of the page

ci
1. pronomo de la dua persono en ununombro, uzata por alparoli iun senceremonie; 2. kelkfoje alparolante al Dio

... in the other hand, to name god using ci , it requires a so special relation, that I wouldn't traduce thou by ci. Thou is more respectuous than the simple you

-______-____thou

vi___vous___you

ci____tu_____-

Okay, so there may, indeed, be a sense of familiarity here that I've missed. That would make sense. At least there would be some rhyme or reason to someone objecting to being called "ci"---on the grounds of it being familiar enough to constitute disrespect...is that the gist of the problem here?

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.

I think the main point is simply that use of ci in almost all contexts is poor style, and that it does not correspond well to familiar pronouns in Indo-European languages, because ci was never used to begin with. Even if someone's religion requires him to say "thou" in English, this does not entail that he must also say "ci" in Esperanto, because the two terms are not congruent.

The closest I can think of is the Old Slavonic jesi, which you might use today when addressing the deity or trying to be facetiously archaic - it, like ci, is in some respects even more jarring than thou.

There is no genuine outward compulsion from anywhere for anyone to adopt obscurantist or irregular language (or behaviours). It is adopted behaviour with nothing behind it aside from the sacred cow of 'religious belief', which no-one is allowed to pooh-pooh as an obsessive compulsive disorder for fear of being branded 'intolerant', which is the 21st century equivalent of how 'fascist' was used around the 1960s.

I get quite tired of having to carefully dance around these ridiculous peccadilloes just because the popular idea of the US (still stuck in the 18th century enlightenment, theoretically at least) demands that we have to tolerate and 'respect' every kind of religious bunkum for fear of insulting someone. The result is this sort of high farce, when really they should be told to get a grip and stop mucking about.