EldanarLambetur:I wonder if "offence" is the wrong word to use when talking about the reaction you instigate by using "thou/thee/thy/ci". Offence is generally up to the person being offended to stop being silly and offended. But I do believe that the reaction caused by someone using "ci" isn't the listener's fault, and will generally, through no fault of the listener, hinder communication or project a skewed (possibly negative) image of the speaker (or his/her intentions in the conversation).

Of course "ci" has its place as a way of showing dialect, archaicism, or in humour etc. e.g. in the way that I might say "Thou art so kind" with a bow when I'm being incredibly sarcastic. Sometimes striking out against usage can eventually lead to more simplicity or expressiveness (like beginning to use suffixes as roots in their own right). And "ci" is to me very pretty, but adding a complication that we've done without for a long time doesn't seem in the spirit of Esperanto.

Well, that's just it, El: the negative reaction to "ci" as being offensive or presumptuous is presumptuous in itself. When I address someone I just met with "ci" (or "thee" in English), for them to immediately take offense on the ASSUMPTION that I have a high opinion of myself, or worse, a low opinion of them for whatever reason, that's their problem and IMO a character flaw. It's like immediately being suspicious of anything different because it's different; is that really the way people prefer to live? Has everyone turned into offenderati nowadays? Isn't it better to come from the attitude of "Hunh...wonder why he did/said that; I'll have to ask; maybe i'll learn something cool" rather than "Dang, what an arrogant toerag! How dare he try to "put me in my place"?" I really actually feel kinda sad for the latter folks.

BlackOtaku:Orthohawk I sincerely don't understand what your(thy?) intent is at this point: no one is saying you cannot say it, that if you even allow your mouth to utter the word you will be damned to Esperanto hell. You may use it as you wish. You say you aren't concerned with other's negative opinions of the word. Others have said their opinions will not change. Are we not talking in circles at this point?

At least continuing the debate in the Esperanto forums would bring more, fresh responses.

True I won't be arrested for using "ci" instead of "vi" to one person, but in a way I most certainly will go to Esperanto hell (or at least purgatory) but not by my going there, rather by being sent there by people who take every opportunity to be offended or even just "presumed upon." And I'm *not* concerned with others' negative opinions. If they choose to not associate with me because of what really is a petty reason due to their own hang ups, I can't force them, and frankly, not to blow my own horn, it's their loss. On another tack, I'd be curious to find out which of the anti-ci'ers here and elsewhere are/were/would be just as much of the opinion that my use of "ci" is offensive/presumptuous AFTER being told that my religious beliefs are the impetus for it, as they were before being so informed.

orthohawk:

BlackOtaku:Orthohawk I sincerely don't understand what your(thy?) intent is at this point: no one is saying you cannot say it, that if you even allow your mouth to utter the word you will be damned to Esperanto hell. You may use it as you wish. You say you aren't concerned with other's negative opinions of the word. Others have said their opinions will not change. Are we not talking in circles at this point?

At least continuing the debate in the Esperanto forums would bring more, fresh responses.

True I won't be arrested for using "ci" instead of "vi" to one person, but in a way I most certainly will go to Esperanto hell (or at least purgatory) but not by my going there, rather by being sent there by people who take every opportunity to be offended or even just "presumed upon." And I'm *not* concerned with others' negative opinions. If they choose to not associate with me because of what really is a petty reason due to their own hang ups, I can't force them, and frankly, not to blow my own horn, it's their loss. On another tack, I'd be curious to find out which of the anti-ci'ers here are/were just as much of the opinion that my use of "ci" is offensive/presumptuous AFTER being told that my religious beliefs are the impetus for it, as they were before being so informed.

Personally speaking, if it's a religious reasoning, I at least respect your use of it on a personal level. I find it a mite odd to be honest, but there are much more out there ideas than that in Esperantujo.

I sympathize with the issue you face; but 'ci' is sadly in a weird place culturally and historically in Esperantujo, and I sadly have no ideas.

Ci is not thee, so let's treat them separately.

As Zamenhof more or less pointed out, you cannot scrub the stink of disrespect off of ci. It doesn't matter how often you say you don't "mean it that way". The meaning is firmly attached to the word. Your good intentions are irrelevant - the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. What matters are the words you actually use, and using the word ci demonstrates a certain level of disrespect when used with non-intimates, whether you like it or not.

Since you know that this is how many people will take it, continuing to use ci is a sign that you simply don't care about indicating a certain level of disrespect to others. Again, you can say you don't mean it that way until you are blue in the face, but the meaning is inherent in the word - if you use ci amongst people who are not your intimates, then you are referring to them as either of lower status or as equivalent to animals. You seem surprised that someone might not like that.

Since the mapping between ci and thee is not full, it does not follow that using thee is also disrespectful (which, as far as I know, it is not).

BlackOtaku:

orthohawk:

BlackOtaku:Orthohawk I sincerely don't understand what your(thy?) intent is at this point: no one is saying you cannot say it, that if you even allow your mouth to utter the word you will be damned to Esperanto hell. You may use it as you wish. You say you aren't concerned with other's negative opinions of the word. Others have said their opinions will not change. Are we not talking in circles at this point?

At least continuing the debate in the Esperanto forums would bring more, fresh responses.

True I won't be arrested for using "ci" instead of "vi" to one person, but in a way I most certainly will go to Esperanto hell (or at least purgatory) but not by my going there, rather by being sent there by people who take every opportunity to be offended or even just "presumed upon." And I'm *not* concerned with others' negative opinions. If they choose to not associate with me because of what really is a petty reason due to their own hang ups, I can't force them, and frankly, not to blow my own horn, it's their loss. On another tack, I'd be curious to find out which of the anti-ci'ers here are/were just as much of the opinion that my use of "ci" is offensive/presumptuous AFTER being told that my religious beliefs are the impetus for it, as they were before being so informed.

Personally speaking, if it's a religious reasoning, I at least respect your use of it on a personal level. I find it a mite odd to be honest, but there are much more out there ideas than that in Esperantujo.

I sympathize with the issue you face; but 'ci' is sadly in a weird place culturally and historically in Esperantujo, and I sadly have no ideas.

Not having assumptions made about me on such flimsy grounds would be a nice start. Maybe I'll just have a big sandwich board made to wear in Esperantujo that says "My use of "ci" is not meant to be offensive or presumptuous. Please do us both a favor and don't take it as such". haha

RiotNrrd:Ci is not thee, so let's treat them separately.

As Zamenhof more or less pointed out, you cannot scrub the stink of disrespect off of ci. It doesn't matter how often you say you don't "mean it that way". The meaning is firmly attached to the word. Your good intentions are irrelevant - the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. What matters are the words you actually use, and using the word ci demonstrates a certain level of disrespect when used with non-intimates, whether you like it or not.

Since you know that this is how many people will take it, continuing to use ci is a sign that you simply don't care about indicating a certain level of disrespect to others. Again, you can say you don't mean it that way until you are blue in the face, but the meaning is inherent in the word - if you use ci amongst people who are not your intimates, then you are referring to them as either of lower status or as equivalent to animals. You seem surprised that someone might not like that.

Since the mapping between ci and thee is not full, it does not follow that using thee is also disrespectful (which, as far as I know, it is not).

IN other words, "Im an offenderati and I will take offense at this whether it's meant or not because that's just the kind of person I am."

Thanks for the warning. too bad there's no "block this user" function here.

ON another tack, the supposed "stink of disrespect" (and that you consider a pronoun meant to be used in intimate conversation to be such, is baffling not to mention a little revealing) is being scrubbed off anyway. I've read that under 25's who are speakers of T-V languages aren't observing the distinction anymore anyway. I guess in a couple years when all the oldsters die off, it won't be a problem anymore. In the meantime i'm happy to contribute what I can to the process.

orthohawk:IN other words, "Im an offenderati and I will take offense at this whether it's meant or not because that's just the kind of person I am."

It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the definition of the word, and the connotations it carries.

Your insistence that ci does not carry negative connotations does not change the fact that it does when used towards non-intimates (something which you seem to keep ignoring). Simply asserting "I don't mean it that way" does not actually change the meaning and usage of the word, and it is unreasonable to assume that people who don't know you will automatically understand your personal redefinition of the term.

There's a reason that the use of ci has never been favored. So, out of curiosity, why do YOU think the use of ci has never caught on beyond a few individual die-hards, anywhere, ever? It's been floating around out there for as long as Esperanto has been around, and is technically even an official part of Esperanto, and yet it's level of usage is nearly nonexistent, and has been, pretty much always. Doesn't that strike you as curious?

The reason is because it's use with people outside your circle of close friends and family is either cloyingly intrusive or insultingly affected (depending on which way you interpret it). Those are the only two interpretations of ci possible, when used with people outside of your intimate circle. Therefore, there is no other way to take it than to consider it an obnoxious form of address in a public forum. It's socially OK with people you are really close to (like calling your spouse "my pet"; it's almost exactly like that, actually), but it's not socially OK with anyone you aren't very, very close to (I am not "your pet", thankyouverymuch).

For example, although you have not done so, so far, I would prefer that you never refer to me on the forum boards as "lover". As in "No, lover, I think you are wrong about that point...". Please don't. Even as a simple label of affection and respect, and nothing more, it would still make me rather uncomfortable, and it would do so because it would imply a degree of closeness that is very inappropriate. We are not socially at the level where you get to call me "lover" (and vice versa, obviously) without my getting a little annoyed by it every time you do it. (And like I said, I'm not saying you have - this is purely an example.) You can say it wouldn't put you off a bit if I started calling you "lover" in every post where I'm saying something to you, but I'm going to choose to think that it would, and that you would prefer I not do that, either. (Which I'm not going to do, btw, if that wasn't already clear; again, just an example.)

Ci is exactly like that.

Go ahead and call your spouse "lover". Use ci to your spouse. Please don't call random guys on internet forum boards "lover". Don't use ci to address people you don't know very well.

It's just better that way.

Again, no one is saying you can't. But words have meanings, and how you word something can make a difference in how it is received.

RiotNrrd:Since the mapping between ci and thee is not full, it does not follow that using thee is also disrespectful (which, as far as I know, it is not).

Quakers ruffled some feathers back in the day when addressing everyone as "thou". In the words of Sir Edward Coke: "I thou thee, thou traitor!"

RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:IN other words, "Im an offenderati and I will take offense at this whether it's meant or not because that's just the kind of person I am."

It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the definition of the word, and the connotations it carries.

Your insistence that ci does not carry negative connotations does not change the fact that it does when used towards non-intimates (something which you seem to keep ignoring). Simply asserting "I don't mean it that way" does not actually change the meaning and usage of the word, and it is unreasonable to assume that people who don't know you will automatically understand your personal redefinition of the term.

There's a reason that the use of ci has never been favored. So, out of curiosity, why do YOU think the use of ci has never caught on beyond a few individual die-hards, anywhere, ever? It's been floating around out there for as long as Esperanto has been around, and is technically even an official part of Esperanto, and yet it's level of usage is nearly nonexistent, and has been, pretty much always. Doesn't that strike you as curious?

The reason is because it's use with people outside your circle of close friends and family is either cloyingly intrusive or insultingly affected (depending on which way you interpret it). Those are the only two interpretations of ci possible, when used with people outside of your intimate circle. Therefore, there is no other way to take it than to consider it an obnoxious form of address in a public forum. It's socially OK with people you are really close to (like calling your spouse "my pet"; it's almost exactly like that, actually), but it's not socially OK with anyone you aren't very, very close to (I am not "your pet", thankyouverymuch).

Pile of huey. took thee a while but you finally got thyself to Milandland. Congrats. You make a nice pair.

So, what's the answer? Why has the usage of ci been nearly nonexistent historically?

Hint: maybe people don't want to be referred to by it.