Ir ao conteúdo
Responder

Solution to the plural you (or y'all) problem in Esperanto.

de konesperantidoj, 4 de maio de 2023

Mensagens: 20

Idioma: English

amigueo (Mostrar o perfil) 5 de maio de 2023 17:20:56

konesperantidoj:Well, that isn't really a reform given that vi was stated to be used in both plural and singular.
But making people use only plural is stupid. That would make Esperanto harder and would make no sense.
Also, another pronoun would be confusing.
Giving the unmarked value to plural is a possibility, giving it to singular is another, conserving the ambiguity about plural/singular is another.
CI is welcome, as a friendly/rude VI.
Where is CU? So respectful/distant CU.

konesperantidoj (Mostrar o perfil) 5 de maio de 2023 19:49:20

amigueo:
konesperantidoj:Well, that isn't really a reform given that vi was stated to be used in both plural and singular.
But making people use only plural is stupid. That would make Esperanto harder and would make no sense.
Also, another pronoun would be confusing.
Giving the unmarked value to plural is a possibility, giving it to singular is another, conserving the ambiguity about plural/singular is another.
CI is welcome, as a friendly/rude VI.
.
Uh, what?

amigueo:Where is CU? So respectful/distant CU.
And why did you make another pronoun while ignoring what I said: «Also, another pronoun would be confusing.»

amigueo (Mostrar o perfil) 6 de maio de 2023 07:42:05

A criticism.

You put a premise that VI is preferably singular, but easily it could be preferable plural.

(About English, you present YALL as a total substitute of plural YOU, but is not the reality).

CI makes VI less affectionate in singular, and people miss a plural CI.

The use of AR for a kind of plural when elision of final O was intended, gives you the rule that AR makes plural.

If Vortaro then Sxiaro.

Analogous argument makes ER a mark of singular.

If Rizero then Viero.

konesperantidoj (Mostrar o perfil) 6 de maio de 2023 09:44:33

amigueo:A criticism.

You put a premise that VI is preferably singular, but easily it could be preferable plural.
Then in that case, singular can be described by viano.

amigueo:(About English, you present YALL as a total substitute of plural YOU, but is not the reality).
How so?

amigueo:CI makes VI less affectionate in singular, and people miss a plural CI.
Less affectionate? The fuck? Where is your proof?

Also, Ci represents thou, which was singular you at that time. It literally couldn't be plural then.

amigueo:The use of AR for a kind of plural when elision of final O was intended, gives you the rule that AR makes plural.
I literally just said this in the original post:
konesperantidoj:I have formed the solution to this problem: vi'ar'. This is a regular complex word which is a combination of vi' (you) and ar' (collection). (Vi'ar' being the shortened form of vi'ar'o.)
-----

To begin with on this «problem» which we don't even have any proof that it's a real problem, given that most Esperanto speakers can tell the plurality or singularity of vi; you are already hand stringing quite minor details to call for reforms against Esperanto; despite most Esperantists not even struggling with the plurality of vi. Meanwhile, there is no track record or evidence of your successful spread on your «changes» to Esperanto.

amigueo (Mostrar o perfil) 7 de maio de 2023 17:37:01

1you.To begin with on this «problem» which we don't even have any proof that it's a real problem, given that most Esperanto speakers can tell the plurality or singularity of vi.
1me. You are right, and I agree. Nevertheless, sometimes, "the several of you" or "the singular you", are practical concepts.
For example: YOU ONE see a problem on pronoun YOU, and whoelse?

2you. you are already hand stringing quite minor details to call for reforms against Esperanto;
2me. I do not think that these style curiosities are AGAINST Esperanto.

3you. there is no track record or evidence of your successful spread on your «changes» to Esperanto.
3me. You are right.

amigueo (Mostrar o perfil) 7 de maio de 2023 17:52:49

I agree with proposals VIARO and VIERO/VIANO. Only to use when useful.

Grammar could help:
" "Singulara vi" venu tuj (ne kunportu amikojn).
" "Plurala vi" pagos krimon (ne nur la teruristo aux disidento sed ties tuta familio).

It easily becomes:
" Singularvi meritas mian amon.
" Pluralvi ricevos donacon de 1000 rubloj (sed cxu cxiu el ni? Haha mistero kaj suspenso).

FIKVI (inspired in FUCK YOU) could be the opposite of VIJO (related with -njo/-jo/-ĉjo/-pjo).

But for calling receiver's attention njo, cxjo, jo could be useful. not necessary the compost vijo.

" Mi sxatas vijajn okulojn.
" Jo, mi sxatas viajn okulojn.
" Fikvi estas rabisto, forigxu aux mi alpafas.
" Neniam mi forgesos sxijon.
" Vinjaj manoj, ho belas.

Altebrilas (Mostrar o perfil) 7 de maio de 2023 22:11:52

Zamenhof invented Esperanto because of people insulting one another in Bialystok. Now the loop is closed.

Metsis (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de maio de 2023 12:08:28

Altebrilas:Zamenhof invented Esperanto because of people insulting one another in Bialystok. Now the loop is closed.
Common language has never hindered people form insulting each other, I would say au contraire.

Metsis (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de maio de 2023 13:13:23

Zamenhof was more than aware that there are languages with the T–V distinction, actually I think that of all languages he knew, only English lacks that distinction. He deliberately chose "vi" to stand both for singular and plural you after the English pattern. The reason being that the use of singular you varies between languages, from romantic to friendly and to rude. Quite possibly he foresaw culture-based misunderstandings with it.

"Ci" was invented to be used in books, theatrical plays etc. when a T–V distinction has to be made, for instance when the text is a translation from a language where this distinction plays a role. In such a work it should have the cultural meaning of the original language (whether romantic, friendly or rude), since there you can define the meaning. Because of this dependency of a defined context, "ci" was never intended to be used generally where there is no such defined meaning. The only somewhat widespread use of "ci" I know (have been told) is among the SAT members to denote comradeship.

Altebrilas (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de maio de 2023 21:57:16

I agree. So there is no need for a special rude version of "ci".

De volta à parte superior