After thinking on the topic of complex words formed from pronouns; 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.)

Example: «Y'all need to chill out!» → «Viar' bezonas malkolerigata!»

[EN]
VI is ambiguous about plural or singular.
VI is kind of rice (the number of grains does not matter).
When you want to specify a plural, use ¿? (VIAR?)
When singular, use ¿? (VIER?)

Do you propose to disambiguate VI every time the second person appears?

(I regret that MI does not follow the wise example of VI).

<br />
VI estas ambigua pri pluralo aux singularo.<br />
VI estas kia rizo (la nombro de greneroj ne gravas).<br />
Kiam vi volas precizigi pluralon, uzu ¿? (viar?)<br />
Kiam singularon, uzu ¿? (vier?)<br />
<br />
Cxu vi proponas malambiguigi VI cxiufoje ke la dua persono aperas?<br />
<br />
(Mi bedauxras ke MI ne sekvas sagxan ekzemplon de VI).

I wrote the thread in English, so write responses in English. | Mi skribis afiŝon angle, do skribu respondojn angle.

amigueo:[EN]
VI is ambiguous about plural or singular.
VI is kind of rice (the number of grains does not matter).

Vi is defined in the fundamento to refer to a singular person. That's why I decided on using viaro for multiple yous.

English Fundamento § 5: 5. The personal pronouns are: mi, „I”; '''vi, „thou”, „you”;''' li, „he”; ŝi, „she”; ĝi, „it”; si, „self”; ni, „we”; ili, „they”; oni, „one”, „people”, (French „on”). Possessive pronouns are formed by suffixing to the required personal, the adjectival termination. The declension of the pronouns is identical with that of substantives. E. g. mi, „I”; mi'n, „me” (obj.); mi'a, „my”, „mine”.

amigueo:Do you propose to disambiguate VI every time the second person appears?

No. Again, that's why I decided on using viaro for multiple yous.

Both vi and mi are defined in the fundamento to refer to singular; unfortunately, Zamenhof didn't think to just combine vi' and ar'o. That's why I formed Vi'ar'o. Mi'ar'o can also be formed logically but I don't see a use for it.

There is an opinion that it is high time to resume the active use of the pronoun "ci", which Lazar Markovich once anathematized (probably to please English-speaking Esperantists), and the pronoun "vi" should be used only in the plural. And then dilettante reformers will not have to create linguistic "monsters".

SlavikDze:There is an opinion that it is high time to resume the active use of the pronoun "ci", which Lazar Markovich once anathematized (probably to please English-speaking Esperantists), and the pronoun "vi" should be used only in the plural. And then dilettante reformers will not have to create linguistic "monsters".

Vi is defined in the fundamento to refer to a singular person. By changing vi to be plural, you breach the fundamento. You are no different from the other reformists.

English Fundamento § 5: 5. The personal pronouns are: mi, „I”; '''vi, „thou”, „you”;''' li, „he”; ŝi, „she”; ĝi, „it”; si, „self”; ni, „we”; ili, „they”; oni, „one”, „people”, (French „on”). Possessive pronouns are formed by suffixing to the required personal, the adjectival termination. The declension of the pronouns is identical with that of substantives. E. g. mi, „I”; mi'n, „me” (obj.); mi'a, „my”, „mine”.

konesperantidoj:

amigueo:[EN]VI is ambiguous about plural or singular. ...

Vi is defined in the fundamento to refer to a singular person. ...

English Fundamento § 5:5. The personal pronouns are: mi, „I”; '''vi, „thou”, „you”;''' li, „he”; ŝi, „she”; ĝi, „it”; si, „self”; ni, „we”; ili, „they”; oni, „one”, „people”, (French „on”). ...

Both vi and mi are defined in the fundamento to refer to singular; ...

I read your extract of Fundamento, and I understand that YOU and VI are identically ambiguous about singular and plural, in addition, VI is even translated by English THOU.

You can say without error: "Hej Dio cxiopova, cxu vi alproksimigu al mi la salan buteron?" (Hey almighty God, could thou hand the salted butter over to me?).

amigueo:

konesperantidoj:Vi is defined in the fundamento to refer to a singular person. ...

Both vi and mi are defined in the fundamento to refer to singular; ...

I read your extract of Fundamento, and I understand that YOU and VI are identically ambiguous about singular and plural, in addition, VI is even translated by English THOU.

You can say without error: "Hej Dio cxiopova, cxu vi alproksimigu al mi la salan buteron?" (Hey allmigthy God, could thou hand the salted butter over to me?).

Well, you do seem to be correct, given the Russian version had mentioned both the singular and plural: https://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org/fundamento/g...

Russian Fundamento § 5:5. Мѣстоименія личныя: mi (я), vi (вы, ты), li (онъ), ŝi (она), ĝi (оно; о вещи или о животномъ), si (себя), ni (мы), ili (они, онѣ), oni (безличное множественнаго числа); притяжательныя образуются прибавленіемъ окончанія прилагательнаго. Склоненіе какъ у существительныхъ (Примѣры: mi|n меня (винит.); mi|a мой).

But how and why is that a problem? If anything, the junctioned «ar'o» on the word can actually serve as a specifier for plural to avoid confusion, hence vi can refer to singular by default.

Also, that example refers to one god, so it doesn't help your point.

@konesperantidoj
Actually, unlike you, I hardly deserve the title of a reformist, for the pronoun "ci" is found both in the "fundamenta" Universala Vortaro and in PIV. And like many other Esperantists, I am of the opinion that declaring the pronoun "ci" an undesirable element was an unwise decision.

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.