I would regard the description of ĥina as 'archaic' as an exaggeration; for example I found an internet page using it without much difficulty.
I see such debates as akin to the ujo vs io controversy. Both alternatives are understood, but one is newer and has come to be used more frequently. To me, which of the alternatives one prefers does not matter that much.

Miland:

russ:..people realized Zamenhof brain-f...

Remember that children are reading this.

Since when was 'brain-farted' offensive? Then again it could be that I'm Australian and we're used to saying some things that other English speaking cultures find offensive [/quote]

Perhaps "brain fart" it is offensive in the UK. It is very mild and inoffensive here in the US. In case anyone is not aware, it is slang that means a mistake that is a result of a momentary loss of concentration. I might say "Esperanto was created by Zamenberg. Oops, brain fart, I meant Zamenhof"

Regarding ĥina vs ĉina, I would definitely not compare this to the ujo/io debate. I have met many, many people who use ujo (usually very experienced speakers with a traditionalist bent) and many, many people who use io as well. I have not met a single person who uses "ĥina".

For the record, I used an automatic translator on the page you referenced, since it is written in Chinese. The citation regarding "ĥinaj esperantistoj", if the translator is understanding it correctly, is a caption from a photo that was probably taken between 1911 and 1914 - so this definitely fits the bill as archaic Esperanto, and not modern usage!

In any case, if you want to use ĥina, go ahead and use it. But it's an archaic use and I have never heard anyone use it in real life.

Aleksandro Melnikov who wrote the following page uses ĥina, and appears to be very much alive. Not to mention this page and this one. I would say that the use of ĥina is by no means extinct. Its respectability goes back to the FK.

Miland:Aleksandro Melnikov who wrote the following page uses ĥina, and appears to be very much alive. Not to mention this page and this one. I would say that the use of ĥina is by no means extinct. Its respectability goes back to the FK.

Please, you need to read the context instead of just googling and seeing that it's on a webpage. Otherwise, it's like citing this very thread as proof that I routinely use "ĥina".

Melnikov is specifically talking about archaic language, and how "ĥin" was replaced by "ĉin", and about the possibilities of a modern speaker using it intentionally for creating a literary or dialect effect!

The second link seems to be someone's transcription of an old historical recording (possibly of Zamenhof himself? It's hard to coherently follow the other messages in the thread through that site's interface.) with comments about language oddities in it and various language changes that have occurred since then.

But OK, the 3rd link indeed seems "real", I agree.

You seem to be exaggerating how widely "ĥina" is used, for whatever reason. Seriously, just do some comparisons:

Google for:
ĥina OR ĥinan OR ĥinaj OR ĥinajn OR hxina OR hxinan OR hxinaj OR hxinajn OR hhina OR hhinan OR hhinaj OR hhinajn
and I get 1444 hits.

Google for:
ĉina OR ĉinan OR ĉinaj OR ĉinajn OR cxina OR cxinan OR cxinaj OR cxinajn
and I get 821,000 hits.
(Note there would be many more, but I generously excluded "china or chinan or chinaj or chinajn" to avoid risking false hits with English "China")

(Like EPA gas mileage estimates, these google claims are always high, but consistently comparable to each other.)

Search for " ĥin[ao]" in tekstaro.com. 43 hits, all from 1916 or earlier, except one later citation in a linguistics book by Wells talking about how "ĥina" was overtaken by "ĉina".

Search for " ĉin[ao]" in tekstaro.com. 440 hits, from as far back as 1920.

Look up "Chinese" in national-language-to-Esperanto dictionaries, and you find "ĉina" not "ĥina".

The Academy's list of recommended land names includes "Ĉinujo/Ĉinio" and not "Ĥinujo/Ĥinio".
http://akademio-de-esperanto.org/decidoj/landnomoj...
(Indeed I can't even find ĥin, ĥina, or ĥino in the Academy's site!)

OK, I don't know what else to say to drive the point home.

I think no one here is asserting that "ĥina" absolutely never occurs any more - of course you can find instances of it with google. The point is simply that it is considered archaic and is not used by MOST speakers. (And by "most" I don't mean merely 51% or something, I mean ALMOST EVERYONE. I've gone to more congresses than I can easily remember, including in China, and I don't recall hearing ANYONE, beginner or long-time speaker, use "ĥin".)

And no one's saying "ĥina" is invalid or that you can't or shouldn't use "ĥina"; just that if you do use it, you should be aware of the implications (that it stands out as archaic or old-fashioned, and thus could be distracting from your message).

In English, you personally tend to use "you", not "thou", even though "thou" is technically a perfectly good English word, right?

russ:Please, you need to read the context .. Melnikov is specifically talking about archaic language, and how "ĥin" was replaced by "ĉin"...

Follow your own advice. Melnikov uses the word twice on that page. You have cited the first. The second is the example Iu el la ĥinaj gardistoj malfermis la pordon ...

I have not exaggerated the use of this word. I have stated that (a) it is legitimate, and (b) it is used, but by a minority. Both statements are true.

Miland:I would regard the description of ĥina as 'archaic' as an exaggeration;

Hmm I'm not sure I see your thinking here. The very page you quoted explicitly marks ĥino as archaic, as does Reta Vortaro, and you yourself have stated it is used by a "minority".

dictionary:
2. (of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage except to suggest the older time, as in religious rituals or historical novels. Examples: thou; wast; methinks; forsooth.

You don't think ĥino is congruent with "commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage"?

Archaic doesn't suggest anything to me about illegitimacy, except perhaps in extreme cases where a word is so unknown as to be meaningless. Plenty of archaic words crop up regularly in modern prose so I'm not sure the appearance of ĥino in some articles here and there is particularly relevant. The issue surely is how much the word was used in the past compared to how much it is used now, and I think it's pretty clear that it has been largely supplanted by ĉino. In that context I'd say "archaic" is perfectly valid description, although I'm sure disagreements can be had based on varying definitions of terms.

tommjames:Archaic doesn't suggest anything to me about illegitimacy

It does depend on how the word is interpreted, and also used; there are degrees to which something can be an older usage, and the word should not used in a derogatory way that questions legitimacy, for example in a context of describing the genesis of a word by using unrefined language. I suspect that ĥina is used outside special contexts like 'thou', but by a decreasing minority. It has been, as you say, mainly supplanted by ĉina.

On the other hand ĥina might usefully take on the connotation of a time when it was used more frequently. I'm thinking of pre-Communist China.

To me, archaic means that the word was used frequently in the past, but that it is very seldom used today. It doesn't have a bad connotation to me, but I think that a person who went around using "ĥina" would be less likely to understood than someone who used "ĉina". And I do not believe that it implies (or should imply) pre-Communist China. China has had many different governments in the past, and I don't see too much point in differentiating between them in naming the country.

Please don't get offended (for yourself or on behalf of the word ĥina) but the consensus of most people in the forum seems to be:

- ĥina is "archaic" in the sense that it was used frequently in the past but is used today only by a tiny minority of people
- it is possible to find the word "ĥina" used online by modern speakers, but these uses are far outnumbered by quotes from the distant past using this word.
- it is a word so rarely used that many Esperanto speakers are not even familiar with it
- anyone is free to choose the word ĥina or the word ĉina, according to their preference, because they are both correct. But users of "ĥina" should be aware that they may not be understood, because use of this word is extremely rare today (just as some other early Esperanto words are extremely rare today, and not likely to be understood)

No one is trying to attack you here, only relate that during their collective decades of involvement with the modern Esperanto movement, they have not found the word to be used by anyone except the tiniest of tiny minorities of speakers.

Feel free to use the word ĥina if it floats your boat. But I am not sure of the purpose of arguing about it endlessly.

Miland:

russ:Please, you need to read the context .. Melnikov is specifically talking about archaic language, and how "ĥin" was replaced by "ĉin"...

Follow your own advice. Melnikov uses the word twice on that page. You have cited the first. The second is the example Iu el la ĥinaj gardistoj malfermis la pordon ...

I indeed read and described both. The larger context of the second instance is:

Malkonsente kun M. K., kiu opinias, ke arkaika leksiko en Eo forestas, ni oponu, ke malgraŭ la `juneco' de Eo, en ĝi jam aperis aro da vortoj, kiuj estis aplikataj nur en la unua etapo de la lingvo-uzado. Tiel, anstataŭ `falŝirmilo, malverdiri, ĉevaliri, mirrakonto' nun oni ĝenerale uzas `paraŝuto, trompi/mensogi, rajdi, fabelo' (vd. ankaŭ: [Haupenthal]). Aperis ankaŭ tavolo de vortoj, kiuj etikedas malnovaĵojn (do, plia speco de arkaika leksiko). Nature (evolurezulte) arkaikiĝas ankaŭ vortkunoj kaj idiomaĵoj. Okazas kelkaj ŝanĝoj en la uzado de morfologiaj kategorioj (ekzemple, anstataŭ `danke ...-on' nun oni kutime diras `dank'al').

Ĉar la vortoj de Eo havas sufiĉan redundancon (kiu eĉ plifortiĝas per la kunteksto) kaj malgrandan entropion, iĝas ebla ioma `kripligo' de leksiko cele atingi certan estetikan efekton. Tio estas farata por lingvaĵa karakterizo de eksterlandanoj, ebriiĝintoj, dialektanoj, nesufiĉe kleraj esperantistoj ktp. Ekzemploj: 1. Iu el la ĥinaj gardistoj malfermis la pordon kaj enkriis: Polti manĝaĵo al kuilejo! (Anstataŭ la korekta: "Portu manĝaĵon al la kuirejo!" - A.M.) 2. Vi pens's, mi est's `bria - jen kio?... Mi dev's zorgi pri mia rep'taci'n... (estas ellasitaj la vokaloj `a, e, u, o' kaj misuzita la akuzativo - A.M.) (Faulhaber 1966: 15-21).

It seems quite clear to me that he's discussing the intentional use of archaic language (and other techniques) for aesthetic/dialect/literary effect. But indeed each reader can read that surrounding context (or even the full article) and decide for themselves.

PS: Sorry for an untranslated chunk of Esperanto text in the English forum, but if I translate it, it would arguably affect others' interpretation of it...