I rather doubt this. When I am speaking to two or more people in English - let's say my mother and father as in your example - it has never been very strenuous to make the distinction. If both are looking at me, and I happen to be talking about both, there's not likely to be confusion.

I don't see why saying "you both" or "you all" is a problem. That's what's effectively being said in a plural pronoun. In fact when using a plural pronoun - I'll take the Dutch jullie because I use it everyday - there are moments when you have to specify who is encompassed by the pronoun if they are not all present, e.g. if you are talking about a board of directors or a group where some of the members are not present, or even if they are all present, but some are an exception to what is being talked about.

There are advantages and yet still limits. I think Esperanto is best left with as few pronouns as is workable...which it is. Adding layers to pinpoint everything adds accuracy, but also complexity and more bulk along with it.

Vestitor:I think Esperanto is best left with as few pronouns as is workable...which it is.

No! It is not. It has the superfluous pronoun oni. Nobody needs it, because in English you don't have it either. Oni diras should be vi diras exactly as it is in English.

"As few pronouns as is workable":
If it is workable that there is no difference between second person singular and plural, why won't it be workable without this distinction in the first and third person?
mi = I, mi = we
li = he, they; ŝi = she, they; ĝi = it, they

If it is workable that there is no difference between second person masculine, feminine and neutral, why won't it be workable without this distinction in the third person?
ĝi = he, she, it

The least number of pronouns "workable" is 0, otherwise there wouldn't be languages (unlike English) without any pronouns at all.

Get over it. Esperanto is not English. And no language can obtain less "complexity". As soon as you reduce a dram of complexity somewhere (be it lexicon, syntax, morphology, etc) you instantly receive a ton more complexity somewhere else (be it lexicon, syntax, morphology, etc).

Zamenhof left the language in the possession of the users in 1905. Since then, popular usage plays an important role in determining right usage, though we have an Akademio as well.

The fact is that ci fell out of ordinary use and hasn't returned. (I personally think it may be useful as a occasional archaism, in translating "thou" or "thee" within an otherwise modern English text.)

The same applies to attempts to introduce collective third-person pronouns like ri. They appeal to some who enjoy experimenting with them for a while, but have not caught on in popular use.

Therefore, for the foreseeable future, it looks as though we will manage fine without either ci or ri.

nornen:

Vestitor:I think Esperanto is best left with as few pronouns as is workable...which it is.

No! It is not. It has the superfluous pronoun oni. Nobody needs it, because in English you don't have it either. Oni diras should be vi diras exactly as it is in English.

English does have it, and it's the same: 'one'. It is not the same as 'you' One is self-referential to the speaker or refers to an individual in general.

nornen:"As few pronouns as is workable":
If it is workable that there is no difference between second person singular and plural, why won't it be workable without this distinction in the first and third person?
mi = I, mi = we
li = he, they; ŝi = she, they; ĝi = it, they

Obviously because first and third person are completely different references.

nornen:If it is workable that there is no difference between second person masculine, feminine and neutral, why won't it be workable without this distinction in the third person?
ĝi = he, she, it

Second person pronouns don't require reference to gender. You're confused.

nornen:The least number of pronouns "workable" is 0, otherwise there wouldn't be languages (unlike English) without any pronouns at all.

No, that would just be a non-working language.

nornen:Get over it. Esperanto is not English. And no language can obtain less "complexity". As soon as you reduce a dram of complexity somewhere (be it lexicon, syntax, morphology, etc) you instantly receive a ton more complexity somewhere else (be it lexicon, syntax, morphology, etc).

Really, so did the reduction of verb irregularity cause intractible problems, or did it solve some? Functional simplicity is a better goal.

This is all utterly false. It is nothing to do with it being like English or not, so I have nothing to "get over". I could just as easily say Esperanto is not French, German, Spanish or Italian either. Zamenhof chose something simpler which happens to mirror the way English tackles plural second-person pronouns, maybe people need to get over that?

The very fact that one needs to say vi ĉiuj suggests that a nuance is indeed missing, since there is no vi unu—which necessitates clumsy paraphrases like vi aparte, Johano and so forth.

There are languages which some argue do not have true pronouns: Japanese for one. Esperanto could have done without pronouns. Just say la ĉi-parolanto for mi, la ĉi-alparolato for vi, etc.

And in contrast to that, Zamenhof could have devised dozens of pronouns for special occasions. For example there is no distinction between inclusive ni (ni inkluzive de vi) and exclusive ni (ni sen vi). Each new pronoun, however, complicates the process of translation, as it forces the translator to decide which exact nuance was meant, on limited evidence.

For interesting quotations about ci, take a look at this link.

We-one hope that you-all are having a merry Christmas, and that you-all do not get too hot-under-the-collar about pronouns today, when you-all should be having fun. Especially you-one, by which we-one mean you-all.

Vestitor:This is all utterly false.

I really admire your ability to quickly deem any fact opposed to your opinion to be false. The world you live in must indeed be quite a jolly place.

Vestitor:Second person pronouns don't require reference to gender. You're confused.

Thanks for confirming that I am confused, after asserting that speakers of languages with attributive agreement (which I am) are "being obtuse" and "not very aurally and visually discerning".

Are you saying that a distinction of gender in the third person is required?

What is a requirement? A requirement for what? For being "workable" or just for your taste?
If second person pronouns don't require reference to gender, neither do third person pronouns. Or are all languages without different pronouns for "he" and "she" unworkable?

Vestitor:No, that would just be a non-working language.

Nice. Now after being "confused", "being obtuse" and being "not very aurally and visually discerning", I also speak a non-working language. Strange enough it works well enough every day.

Vestitor:Obviously because first and third person are completely different references.

What is the difference in deixis between a word referring to the parlanto, a word referring to the alparolato, and a word referring to the priparolato? Yes, those references are completely different.

opalo:The very fact that one needs to say vi ĉiuj suggests that a nuance is indeed missing, since there is no vi unu—which necessitates clumsy paraphrases like vi aparte, Johano and so forth.

Well, the nuance is not missing, we can still express it, albeit somehow clumsily. A thing I have wondered about a lot is why Z chose to break symmetry in the personal pronoun system of a language which otherwise is highly symmetrical and regular. First, the plurals of the personal pronouns are irregular. Second, one and only one pronoun (vi) refers to both singular and plural while the rest are strictly divided (mi, ci, ŝi, li, ĝi: singular; ni, ili: plural). Third, there are different pronouns for male, female and neutral only for one person and one number (3rd singular), while the rest are genderless (even the plurals of the gendered pronouns).
But well, this is just how Esperanto is and I am quite positive that Z had some good reasons for these design decisions. The pronouns found in natural languages range from zero to 20+ and even to the case that the personal pronouns are an open class, meaning that their number is basically unlimited. I think Esperanto with its eight personal pronouns has chosen a golden middle path. Medio tutissimus ibis...

opalo:And in contrast to that, Zamenhof could have devised dozens of pronouns for special occasions. For example there is no distinction between inclusive ni (ni inkluzive de vi) and exclusive ni (ni sen vi). Each new pronoun, however, complicates the process of translation, as it forces the translator to decide which exact nuance was meant, on limited evidence.

I concur. Beside the distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person, another item that piques my interest is the reflexive pronoun.

Esperanto has a reflexive pronoun which inflects for case, but not for number. It is only used with the third person and not with the other persons (unlike e.g. slavic or mayan languages which use reflexive constructions for all persons). It helps us to distinguish whether a phrase refers back to the subject (Li pentris sin) or to a forth entity (Li pentris lin). However this is only limited to certain occasions:

Petro pentris Petron (=sama Petro). = Li pentris sin.
Petro pentris Karolon. = Li pentris lin.

In other contexts it doesn't help much.
Petro diris, ke Petro (=sama Petro) ĝin faris. = Li diris, ke li ĝin faris.
Patro diris, ke Karolon ĝin faris. = Li diris, ke li ĝin faris.

Even "mem" doesn't help:
- Ĉu Karolo mem ĝin faris?
= Evidente, ĉar Petro diris, ke li mem (=Karolo mem) ĝin faris.

Languages with four persons can clearly distinguish these cases. Let me use the hypothetical forth person pronoun "bi".

Petro pentris Petron (=sama Petro). = Li pentris lin.
Petro pentris Karolon. = Li pentris bin.
Petro diris, ke Petro (=sama Petro) ĝin faris. = Li diris, ke li ĝin faris.
Patro diris, ke Karolon ĝin faris. = Li diris, ke bi ĝin faris.

However this is just some hypothetical and theoretical musing of mine. I like Esperanto just the way it is.

nornen:

Vestitor:This is all utterly false.

I really admire your ability to quickly deem any fact opposed to your opinion to be false. The world you live in must indeed be quite a jolly place.

You have 'facts' and I have merely 'opinions'? Great start to a diatribe about me being rude. obnoxious etc.

The 'facts' are these: Esperanto works perfectly well without a second person plural, just like English does. It's also not a conspiracy with me trying to make Esperanto more like English; obviously, since the author of Esperanto chose this position, not me. So it makes no sense to go on about how several other languages use 2nd person plural - Esperanto doesn't and it still works perfectly well as a result.

All this ballyhoo about people getting into comedy muddles because of the lack of 2nd person plural is over-exaggeration. All we ever hear from non-native English learners is how 'easy' English is, how the grammar is so simple compared to other languages and in the next breath that all the lack of cases-systems and superfluous extras cause language poverty. It's boring.

Merry Christmas.

Vestitor:The 'facts' are these: Esperanto works perfectly well without a second person plural, just like English does. It's also not a conspiracy with me trying to make Esperanto more like English; obviously, since the author of Esperanto chose this position, not me. So it makes no sense to go on about how several other languages use 2nd person plural - Esperanto doesn't and it still works perfectly well as a result.

My point is that both Esperanto and English "work" without a second-person pronoun singular and plural distinction but that they do not work "perfectly well." As I mentioned far above, lack of the distinction can be a problem when translating out of a language (such as classical Arabic of the Qur'an) which does make the distinction, or sometimes in speaking, as I also mentioned.