The original questions were about (a) how frequently ci is used and (b) whether it is socially acceptable.

The first may be safely answered: almost never. The second surely depends on the view the majority of speakers take of it. Zamenhof clearly thought that the answer was No: "Cxiuj nuntempaj kulturaj popoloj tiel alkutimiĝis al la ideo, ke “ci” enhavas en si ion senrespektan, ke ni neniam povus postuli de la Esperantistoj, ke ili al ĉiu unu persono diru “ci”". I translate freely: "All contemporary cultures are so used to the idea, that "ci" embodies something disrespectful, that we would never insist that Esperantists say it whenever speaking to a single person."

Therefore, it is better not to use it. Even if it is favoured from time to time by a minority of speakers, learners should note that no textbook in common use among Esperantists recommends it - rather, the contrary.

I believe I had read in another thread about usage of "ci", that komencantoj / beginners shouldn't comment on changes to Esperanto until we are more fluent. Nevertheless, I"ll throw in my two cents. As a fluent conversational Chinese speaker, as well as having a fairly good understanding of some other languages, I thought it was great to see that Esperanto had a you singular and a you plural. In none of the languages that I was familiar, including modern Southern U.S. English was any form of you considered impolite (perhaps informal, but not impolite). However, reading all these postings has been very enlightening to me. Therefore, I will refrain from using "ci" unless used in a religious King James type way, or perhaps poetically, or referring to archaic English (none of which I'm likely to do anyhow). I have learned that 1) Esperanto has been around over 100 years and the usage of "ci" is not customarily used, 2) trying to get others to use an archaic word in order to "improve" a conlang's grammar is not practical, and could end up splintering and weakening the most successful conlang conceived to-date, and most importantly 3) I would not want to mistakenly offend anyone, especially for a language that for me represents neutrality and mutual respect across nations and peoples.

Lastly, some have written some things to the effect that you (all) are beating a dead horse so to speak by continuing to discuss "ci" usage. I disagree. As an Esperanto beginner, and a novice to conlang's, I have learned a great deal and appreciate everyone's postings. I just did a search at Lernu regarding Forum postings concerning when to use kiu, kio, kia, which are not used the way I as an English speaker would think to use them. The Forum postings were much more helpful than the books I'm using now for learning Esperanto. So thanks to you all (or thanks to just plain you, if you prefer). By the way, Merry Christmas (in 2 hours for me) to those who celebrate Christmas, to all the rest Happy Holidays And Happy New Year.

makis:orthohawk: I have been trying to research the use of thee/thou/etc as a prescription of Eastern Orthodox so I won't have some ilinformed opinion but my search has been fruitless and I'm more confused than ever!

Is there some literature you can point me to advocating its use?

The most confusing aspect is why use thee/thou/etc but not retain any of the other old styles of word choice and word spelling?

Sorry to bring up an old post but I finally found a (somewhat) satisfactory explaination:
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~bmaurus/plainspeech.h...

and

http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/spiritual...
Note particularly paragraph three and also the final three paragraphs.

orthohawk:Sorry to bring up an old post but I finally found a (somewhat) satisfactory explaination:
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~bmaurus/plainspeech.h...

and

http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/spiritual...
Note particularly paragraph three and also the final three paragraphs.

Ho ve! The dreaded ci vs vi thread!

I don't want to reignite this thread, so, let me just say thanks for the clarification. It does make sense now why you don't use the other forms and choose to use ci. Unless that somehow changed in the intervening 8 months?

ETA: other forms as in hath, art, ktp.

orthohawk:Sorry to bring up an old post but I finally found a (somewhat) satisfactory explaination:
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~bmaurus/plainspeech.h...

and

http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/spiritual...
Note particularly paragraph three and also the final three paragraphs.

Interesting articles. Having joined Lernu well after Orthohawk, I've wondered from time to time what the reason for his apparent nonstandard use of archaic speech was about. Now I finally know.

My two cents: While Plain Speech's grammatical correctness or lack thereof doesn't affect my day one way or the other, if the goal of Plain Speech is simplicity and an avoidance of pomp, affectation and artificiality, the peculiar use of thee in an era where thee is used almost exclusively for pomp, affectation, and religious solemnity — and where you is standard for both the singular and the plural — seems to undermine that goal and marginalize the Plain Speaker.

In any case, the archaic speech from the childhood scenes in Nixon make much more sense now.

morfran:

orthohawk:Sorry to bring up an old post but I finally found a (somewhat) satisfactory explaination:
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~bmaurus/plainspeech.h...

and

http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/spiritual...
Note particularly paragraph three and also the final three paragraphs.

Interesting articles. Having joined Lernu well after Orthohawk, I've wondered from time to time what the reason for his apparent nonstandard use of archaic speech was about. Now I finally know.

My two cents: While Plain Speech's grammatical correctness or lack thereof doesn't affect my day one way or the other, if the goal of Plain Speech is simplicity and an avoidance of pomp, affectation and artificiality, the peculiar use of thee in an era where thee is used almost exclusively for pomp, affectation, and religious solemnity — and where you is standard for both the singular and the plural — seems to undermine that goal and marginalize the Plain Speaker.

In any case, the archaic speech from the childhood scenes in Nixon make much more sense now.

For me, it's not so much avoidance of pomp etc as truthful speaking. As said before, it's not really truthful to use a plural pronoun when speaking to one person. Yeah, it might sound a little overly scrupulous to some, but we're all in different stages of our theosis. What I'm ready for may not be what someone else is ready for and vice versa. Like we say in Orthodox circles about fasting "Look to your own plates" with the implication "because someone else's plate is between them and God"

sudanglo:

It is most annoying that many Esperantists seem to have a personal linguistic agenda, making up solutions to problems that don't exist (na, ŝli, ri, ci...)

Yes it is irritating, but sometimes someone comes up with a good idea and this is recognized by the community at large and it becomes mainstream.

To be fair, Zamenhof himself was the Esperantist who made up ci. At least it's fundamenta. I do agree with everything else you said here though. There is no such word as na or ri. There does not need to be. Anyone who wants to make up new words are free to make a new language altogether and leave ours well enough alone. My welcome is for the real speakers - not the crypto-Idists and idiotic reformers.

orthohawk:

morfran:

orthohawk:Sorry to bring up an old post but I finally found a (somewhat) satisfactory explaination:
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~bmaurus/plainspeech.h...

and

http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/spiritual...
Note particularly paragraph three and also the final three paragraphs.

Interesting articles. Having joined Lernu well after Orthohawk, I've wondered from time to time what the reason for his apparent nonstandard use of archaic speech was about. Now I finally know.

My two cents: While Plain Speech's grammatical correctness or lack thereof doesn't affect my day one way or the other, if the goal of Plain Speech is simplicity and an avoidance of pomp, affectation and artificiality, the peculiar use of thee in an era where thee is used almost exclusively for pomp, affectation, and religious solemnity — and where you is standard for both the singular and the plural — seems to undermine that goal and marginalize the Plain Speaker.

In any case, the archaic speech from the childhood scenes in Nixon make much more sense now.

For me, it's not so much avoidance of pomp etc as truthful speaking. As said before, it's not really truthful to use a plural pronoun when speaking to one person. Yeah, it might sound a little overly scrupulous to some, but we're all in different stages of our theosis. What I'm ready for may not be what someone else is ready for and vice versa. Like we say in Orthodox circles about fasting "Look to your own plates" with the implication "because someone else's plate is between them and God"

I figured that it was a simple holdover from its use in the translations of the Bible, but it also makes sense that they were refusing to elevate some men over others by using the plural.

I also get the impression of pompousness when I see the use of singular pronouns, but it definitely comes from their use in formal religious settings. For me, I more naturally would use the modern "you" and "you all" in conversing with friends/family and the use of the singular would be no more "truthful" in my eyes. I know several people who might even take offense to its use as though I were using it to confuse or elevate myself above them (i.e. "holier than thou" ). But in a context where it was normal or expected I completely understand its use, and the fact that it originated through opposition to using formal language is admirable.