tommjames:you'd have to say mia memo if it was for yourself (unless the context already made it clear who's self you mean), and then you have to ask if you're going to use the pronoun mi anyway why not just tag an o on the end and use that more compact form.

The reason is that I am not happy about making my inner self, which is a person, into a substantive or object. (Possibly you might have a similar reservation.) Holding to the 'sanctity' of pronouns thus helps us protect the dignity of the human person!

My inner self is grammatically a noun without a doubt. And so are persons, btw. No reservations here.

There are vastly different fields in which I would strive to respect human dignity. And I am not exactly comfortable with the idea of sanctity applied to a language (or parts of it), which has been designed to be neutral.

mnlg:My inner self is grammatically a noun without a doubt. ..

So is nomo, but as I recall, the question 'Kio estas via nomo? ' doesn't appeal to you!

mnlg:I am not exactly comfortable with the idea of sanctity applied to a language (or parts of it), which has been designed to be neutral.

I did put the word in quotes. My point was that reserving a special use for pronouns reflects a reality, namely that of persons not being uzindaĵoj.

(trans: things which are meant to be used)

Miland:

mnlg:My inner self is grammatically a noun without a doubt. ..

So is nomo, but as I recall, the question 'Kio estas via nomo? ' doesn't appeal to you!

As I have undoubtedly explained on more than one occasion (although quite probably in an Esperanto forum), I have no problem at all with that question. It is perfectly valid, grammatically. As to its meaning, it's another matter entirely. All questions beginning with "Kio estas X?" get usually replied to with an explanation of the essence of X, not with a named example of X. To the question "Kio estas hundo?" I would never answer "ĝi estas Fido", but "ĝi estas besto"; to the question "kio estas televidilo?" I would reply "ĝi estas aparato", and not "ĝi estas Panasonic".

Therefore I do not find it proper to reply that question with a given name. I would keep the symmetry and reply with an explanation of the concept behind my name ("ĝi estas etikedo per kiu aliaj vokas min", or something to that effect). I have contacted the konsultejo de la Akademio about this, and the director at that time wholeheartedly agreed with my view. If this has any importance, I leave that for you to decide.

My point was that reserving a special use for pronouns reflects a reality, namely that of persons not being uzindaĵoj.

Actually they have been, and according to your ideals or religion they might still be (to fulfill a cosmic plan, as pawns to a massive social experiment, or whatever else you might concoct). In a way I could even say that I am used (and paid) by my boss to increase productivity in his company. A very crude description, which however might fit to some degree.

I think the dignity of human persons can and should transpire through the meaning of your message, but not necessarily by means of your orthography. I guess speakers of other languages might disagree and propose that a careful choice of calligraphy and wording is as instrumental for the final message as the underlying meaning. This can very well be true, and I have no problem in respecting what much probably is a quality of those other languages, possibly as old and refined as the language itself, and, I'd assume, strongly tied to the culture of the speakers of that language. In the case of Esperanto, however, I would not recommend such an approach, as much as I would consider it improper to import idioms from your own language(s) verbatim into Esperanto.

mnlg:

Miland:

mnlg:My inner self is grammatically a noun without a doubt. ..

So is nomo, but as I recall, the question 'Kio estas via nomo? ' doesn't appeal to you!

.. I do not find it proper to reply that question with a given name. ..

My point here was that substantives may be used in a special sense which does not refer to a thing. For example nomo. Likewise the inner self.

mnlg:

Miland:My point was that reserving a special use for pronouns reflects a reality, namely that of persons not being uzindaĵoj.

Actually they have been..I could even say that I am used (and paid) by my boss

I would say that our skills are used, rather than we ourselves, but there is a point at which servitude becomes the usage of people (in a way that igmores their well-being), and at that point we have exploitation which it is right to take political action against.

mnlg:..I would consider it improper to import idioms from your own language(s) verbatim into Esperanto.

There's no importation going on in sticking to the usage of pronouns as Z designed them, i.e. as vortetoj (as PMEG describes them) that may take -a, but not -o.

Miland:My point here was that substantives may be used in a special sense which does not refer to a thing.

I'm puzzled. Substantives do not have to refer to things exclusively. They can point to abstract ideas (amo, tristo, mizero: would you say those are "things"?); this I agree to, and I don't think I ever doubted that. It's the appropriation of sanctity (or whatever else you want to call it) that confounds me. We were discussing grammar, and my opinion is that grammar should not care about the cultural meaning that words might have within any community of speakers, all the more reason if the grammar in question defines a language designed to be neutral. This is all.

mnlg:at that point we have exploitation which it is right to take political action against.

I agree, but grammar should not really care.

mnlg:There's no importation going on in sticking to the usage of pronouns as Z designed them ...

My apologies, I wasn't referring to what you proposed. I was saying that applying cultural standards to grammar is as improper, to me, as lifting idioms from your language directly into Esperanto. It violates a certain neutrality that I think belongs to grammar, even more so in the case of Esperanto.

mnlg:It's the appropriation of sanctity (or whatever else you want to call it) that confounds me. We were discussing grammar

The word 'sanctity' appears to have put the cat among the pigeons. Perhaps it would be better if I put it this way: pronouns are not substantives that can be used as freely as other roots. In terms of customary usage they may take -a, but not -o.

Our opinions as to why this is appropriate at all may differ, but I suggested one.

But I have one reservation about the exclusion of "cultural values" from Esperanto in the name of "neutrality". Is that doing justice to it the way Z saw it? Did he not insist on the interna ideo being an essential part of the movement, and is not the dignity of the human being an essential part of his vision?

Miland:Perhaps it would be better if I put it this way: pronouns are not substantives that can be used as freely as other roots. In terms of customary usage they may take -a, but not -o.

Okay, this is more debatable, and I do not have any strong opinions about it, so I will leave some room for other members to be at each other's throat

Did he not insist on the interna ideo being an essential part of the movement ... ?

The movement, yes. The grammar, I'm not sure. Truth be told, it would have been fairly impossible to avoid any influence of cultural values for such an endeavour. But I still think that this practice should not be followed furtherly, at least for e-o. If I were to accept reforms at all, I would welcome attempts to remove ambiguities, or increase easiness of pronunciation or morphology; adding cultural weight to single words or classes of words would meet my opposition.

I've done a little digging and have found an instance where the -o ending is added to a pronoun, and even takes suffixes. Apparently, the words id, ego, and superego can be rendered in Esperanto as mio, miego, kaj ĝio.

Miland:

mnlg:pronouns are not substantives that can be used as freely as other roots.

This, however, is not a universal concept in human language. Of all the things in the already somewhat un-universal european system of lexical categorisation, the difference between nouns and pronouns is very very debatable, and in many languages as I think I may have said, there is no difference - 'pronouns' are just nouns that refer to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons in conversational theory. In Japanese, there are pronouns that are old nouns - anata (you,polite) is an example, meaning 'dear one'. otaku (you,polite in nerdish way) meant 'house' (I presume this means 'house', as in the family line, e.g. The house of Kannagi).

Pronouns might not take -o in order to prevent misunderstandings in the accusative. Mion' could be taken to be 'a fraction of me'. Could be a poetic possibility, who knows.

Sorry miland, just couldn't help but throw that darned cat back in amongst the despairing poultry!