Polaris: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?

That is, basically, the long and the short of it. It's not so much that it's "just a pronoun", but that it implies a level of closeness that may not actually be there among casual acquaintances or strangers. Unless you have a previously well defined relationship with someone, the use of ci towards them is somewhat presumptuous. The extent to which it might bother people is probably related to how pronouns work in their native languages, although that's also likely more of a guideline than a rule. Since with strangers you may not know how their native languages handle pronouns, it is always safer to use the normal term, vi, which does not have the same implications of intimacy.

Erinja already clarified that it wasn't use of 'ci' per se that she'd find offensive, but use of it after she has expressed a wish to be addressed as 'vi'.

Isn't it easy to understand why this might be the case? If you express a particular preference and someone wilfully flouts it, that's a basic disrespect. It doesn't matter what the reasons might be for preferring to be called 'vi'; if that is the stated preference, and someone shows contempt for it by deliberately ignoring it, then IMO you have the right to feel affronted.

I would accept that this is probably less the case if someone feels religiously obligated to use the word they've been asked not to use. The idea that there is an "inherent untruthfulness" in using 'vi' to refer to a single person is one that will strike many people as plainly ridiculous (myself included), but if someone sincerely believes in this, and that it mandates the use of 'ci' when speaking Esperanto, then I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it. I'd find it irritating and a sign of crippled thinking, but not particularly offensive.

On the other hand, it's difficult to have sympathy with the devout when their enthusiasm for the doctrine they subscribe to seems to stem in large part from bigoted and deeply misinformed opinions about the nature of personal identity, gender, sex, sexuality etc. At this point my respect for people's right to believe and practice nonsense tends to break down a bit.

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.

tommjames:...It doesn't matter what the reasons might be for preferring to be called 'vi'; if that is the stated preference, and someone shows contempt for it by deliberately ignoring it, then IMO you have the right to feel affronted.

I disagree with you; it DOES matter what the reasons might be. That's what I'm trying to drill down to. We're only talking about a pronoun here--a language device--not someone's personal name, so there must be SOME reason why it matters. If we already know that someone calls everybody by a particular pronoun (in this case "ci" ), then it's not as though he is singling out someone for disrespect, so I'm inquiring to see if there is some connotation that surrounds the pronoun "ci" that I'm simply not familiar with. Take Erin out of the equation for a moment---my question is why would anybody give a rip one way or another? The answer to that question might help to explain why it matters to Erin in the first place. If there really is no significant reason, then I'm not sure that a person has the right to insist that an individual change the habitual way he expresses himself with everybody just to make an exception for that individual--UNLESS there is some weightier reason than just a superficial preference.

tommjames:I would accept that this is probably less the case if someone feels religiously obligated...on the other hand, it's difficult to have sympathy with the devout when their enthusiasm for the doctrine they subscribe to seems to stem in large part from bigoted and deeply misinformed opinions about the nature of personal identity, gender, sex, sexuality etc.

1. I really can't see how any of that applies here. I don't see how Orthohawk's use of the "thee" or his Esperanto use of "ci" (not that they are equivalent) has a thing to do with any of the things you've mentioned. Where is sex coming into this discussion? What does this have to do with gender? Isn't "ci" a gender-neutral word? You mention "deeply misinformed opinions"---whose opinion is "deeply misinformed?" I wasn't aware that Orthohawk was demanding that anybody subscribe to his pronoun use or that that this had anything to do with personal identity, etc., so I'm having a hard time finding a nexus between your comments and the greater discussion.

2. I do not agree with Orthohawk. I think the whole supposedly religious reason behind his use of "thee" (and his attempt to try to make the word "ci" its equivalent) is an effort to be eccentric in order to feel special at best, or a sign of mental instability issues at worst. That's just my opinion, based entirely on the way this all looks on here, but it's what I think none-the-less. Furthermore, even if there is a religious motivation, it is misguided, because neither "you" nor "vi" are exclusively plural--both can be used as singular references as well. And I'm sorry, but the fact that he can be vulgar, use profanity, and call someone a filthy ethnically-charged name belies any claim that he is doing this in order to practice righteousness in speech. But if we accepted at face value that this IS the outgrowth of some misguided religious motivation, again, why would someone think he should change just for him or her? Do you really think that "I prefer" trumps "my religious beliefs mandate...."? And if he is just being a fruitcake and using religion as an excuse, again, why take him seriously?

Polaris:it DOES matter what the reasons might be.

Ok, if it matters to you then fine, but I'm not here to make judgements about people's personal preferences. Asking to be addressed with the correct pronoun is not exactly an extravagant or unreasonable request, so it's not something I would feel the need to drill down into, personally.

Polaris:If we already know that someone calls everybody by a particular pronoun (in this case "ci" ), then it's not as though he is singling out someone for disrespect

It wouldn't be disrespectful if the person using 'ci' didn't know the person they're talking to prefers to be called 'vi'. But if they did know this, or they had been explicitly requested to use 'vi' then I think it would be. It's like saying "I don't give a damn about your preferences, I'm going to speak how I'm going to speak and to hell with you". I can understand someone choosing to follow their religion over respecting someone's personal preference, but this is a pretty bizarre fringe case.

Polaris:I'm not sure that a person has the right to insist that an individual change the habitual way he expresses himself with everybody

I would agree, however I don't recall seeing anybody insist on that.

Polaris:I really can't see how any of that applies here. I don't see how Orthohawk's use of the "thee" or his Esperanto use of "ci" (not that they are equivalent) has a thing to do with any of the things you've mentioned. Where is sex coming into this discussion? What does this have to do with gender?

I was referring to other threads where he was exhibiting bigotry of the first order with respect to non-binary people and the pronoun they should use. You may have missed it though, because most of the posts were deleted just prior to Orthohawk's meltdown.

Polaris:You mention "deeply misinformed opinions"---whose opinion is "deeply misinformed?" I wasn't aware that Orthohawk was demanding that anybody subscribe to his pronoun use or that that this had anything to do with personal identity, etc.

As above. The gist of it was some strange stuff about how non binary people have no right to bear false witness and that they must use whichever pronoun (male 'li' or female 'ŝi' ) applies to them - something which obviously isn't going to be possible/desirable in every case with non-binary people. That stuff probably doesn't have much direct bearing on his decision to use 'ci', but it ties into this whole idea about "false witness", so I see it as related.

tommjames:

Polaris:it DOES matter what the reasons might be.

Ok, if it matters to you then fine, but I'm not here to make judgements about people's personal preferences. Asking to be addressed with the correct pronoun is not exactly an extravagant or unreasonable request, so it's not something I would feel the need to drill down into, personally.

Polaris:If we already know that someone calls everybody by a particular pronoun (in this case "ci" ), then it's not as though he is singling out someone for disrespect

It wouldn't be disrespectful if the person using 'ci' didn't know the person they're talking to prefers to be called 'vi'. But if they did know this, or they had been explicitly requested to use 'vi' then I think it would be. It's like saying "I don't give a damn about your preferences, I'm going to speak how I'm going to speak and to hell with you". I can understand someone choosing to follow their religion over respecting someone's personal preference, but this is a pretty bizarre fringe case.

Polaris:I'm not sure that a person has the right to insist that an individual change the habitual way he expresses himself with everybody

I would agree, however I don't recall seeing anybody insist on that.

Polaris:I really can't see how any of that applies here. I don't see how Orthohawk's use of the "thee" or his Esperanto use of "ci" (not that they are equivalent) has a thing to do with any of the things you've mentioned. Where is sex coming into this discussion? What does this have to do with gender?

I referring to other threads where he was exhibiting bigotry of the first order with respect to non-binary people and the pronoun they should use. You may have missed it though, because most of the posts were deleted just prior to Orthohawk's meltdown.

Polaris:You mention "deeply misinformed opinions"---whose opinion is "deeply misinformed?" I wasn't aware that Orthohawk was demanding that anybody subscribe to his pronoun use or that that this had anything to do with personal identity, etc.

As above. The gist of it was some strange stuff about how non binary people have no right to bear false witness and that they must use whichever pronoun (male 'li' or female 'ŝi' ) applies to them - something which obviously isn't going to be possible/desirable in every case with non-binary people. That stuff probably doesn't have much direct bearing on his decision to use 'ci', but it ties into this whole idea about "false witness", so I see it as related.

Okay, so there were some other posts or other discussions that bled over into this one (though 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--so c'est la vie--but that topic is probably best reserved for another thread. It has practically nothing to do with Esperanto, per se, so it's probably a good one to sidestep. 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.

But I really did want to drill down into the whole ci / vi thing---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. But I wanted to know.

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.

Simple solution.

Forget ci.
No matter the original definition, for some people the word has connotations that they find offensive.

Those comfortable with using the same word to mean you plural and you singular can use vi.

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.

This would not be the first time that Esperanto has borrowed from Ido.

Bemused:Simple solution...
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.

This would not be the first time that Esperanto has borrowed from Ido.

One could also simply be careful to add a qualifier such as ĉiu el vi or vi ĉiuj for the plural and use vi alone for the singular---that would work nicely and be unobtrusive.

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 same difficulty will arise if you try to use the pronouns tu or vu in Esperanto - they simply don't exist, and there's no indication that the language will evolve in the near future to accommodate new pronouns.

If it is essential to emphasise the plural second person, use vi cxiuj.

(Sorry for the long post - I just get a little tired of hearing reform proposals.)