Paulinho:...I can't figure someone feeling him/herself offended by being addressed to, with this word.

That's the thing with being polite in a mixed-cultural setting (of which Esperantujo is definitely one). The reason is less important than the fact itself. If you use ci, you will strike some people as speaking disrespectfully. It doesn't matter if you agree with whether they should or should not take it that way, or even understand why some might. Some will. Forewarned is forearmed.

Being polite means making the effort to not be impolite. Vi is the polite form of public address, always. Ci is not.

I don't know why showing the bottoms of my feet to someone from Thailand is a grave social faux pas to them. I don't need to know. The fact that it is so (and that I know this) is sufficient cause for me not to do it. I have no desire to make people uncomfortable just to assert my right to be culturally insensitive or uninformed.

Using vi instead of ci, in every case, gets around any misunderstandings (on this point, at least). It is internationally safe. In Esperantujo, we are all to some extent ambassadors, and vi is the diplomatic form of address.

Although ci has a slightly stronger pedigree than na does, it still belongs on the same heap.

If you want to say y'all, use vi ĉiuj.

Breto:
As a side note, because I'm anal about such things: "Thou" is the singular, subject form, "thee" is the singular object form, and "thy/thine" is the singular possessive. "Ye" is the plural subject form, while "you" is the object form and "your" and "yours" work as usual (unless I suppose they might be "yer" and "yers", with unchanged pronunciation).

In my part of the English world 'ye' is indeed the standard plural form, and the singular/plural distinction is alive and well. And you were close in the declination Breto.. here we say 'ye'(sub and obj), 'yeir', and 'yeirs'. The singular forms are the 'you' forms found elsewhere. The last generation of speakers who used 'dee', or 'ee for the singular are pretty much all dead now.

Our politicians and teachers use these forms, so it is not a level of language thing, however, we all know better then to use it to talk to the broader English world.. it kinda throws them.

So I guess 'ci' could be like that, I think its fine, and I naturally want to make the number distinction when I speak ( and ONLY number - the FAMILIAR aspect is a mystery to me ), but I guess I may be in danger of alarming the ONE fellow I'm trying to talk to.

All that said.. does it really matter? Why should ye, the rest of the English world care if I call ye ye? And if I need to talk to 'ci' out of a group of EO speakers, well then, I want to talk to ci, and not that other crowd... besides, it is a great minority of us EO speakers that ever really find ourselves in 'regular' EO conversation. Never hear 'ci'? I never hear 'vi' either!

Prose and poetry it is.. let them have fun with the language.. we need them to keep writing.

I understood informality is offensive to you? oh and... standing too close is invading? It's interesting, I didn't know there was such a difference between latin and anglo-saxon cultures.

Formality and informality are cultural trends that strongly differ from a culture to another, not only by their form, but also by their meaning (and not only betwwen latins an anglo-saxons, just think about e.g. japanese and arabs). And just for that reason we cannot use ci in a international (intercultural) language.... at least in "normal conversation".

Paulinho:When I first learnt some Esperanto I learnt to say CI. I cann't figure someone feeling him/herself offended by being addressed to, with this word.

[/quote]Who was your teacher or did you learn the word in a textbook? Was there no warning?

It is most annoying that many Esperantist seem to have a personal linguistic agenda, making up solutions to problems that don't exist (na, ŝli, ri, ci...), but a teacher or an elementary textbook telling you to use "ci" as an everyday word is doing a most serious disservice to defenceless beginners.

To me it was a surprise when I met LERNU and read peopl using VI, with both value of singular and pluaral.

Welcome to normal language. Lots of reading and writing and discussing with real people is the only way to defend yourself against language charlatans. But, please, tell us who taught you in the first place? We should have public warnings about them.

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.

Actually, and I speak just for myself, Ŝli seems a good idea to avoid the nuisance of saying li aŭ ŝi to make it clear you don't intend just to refer to one sex, or having to put a footnote to the indicate that all references to the male sex are to include the female sex.

sudanglo:
Actually, and I speak just for myself, Ŝli seems a good idea to avoid the nuisance of saying li aŭ ŝi to make it clear you don't intend just to refer to one sex, or having to put a footnote to the indicate that all references to the male sex are to include the female sex.

ĝi FTW

As ge- is nowadays in fashion: geili and geli

Tjeri:Formality and informality are cultural trends that strongly differ from a culture to another, not only by their form, but also by their meaning (and not only betwwen latins an anglo-saxons, just think about e.g. japanese and arabs). And just for that reason we cannot use ci in a international (intercultural) language.... at least in "normal conversation".

if a friend talks to you in french using "vous", won't you find it weird? Friendship is common to all cultures, right? Well, "ci" is used to express friendship (that's how it is described). What's the problem?
The problem is that we use the second-person plural pronoun as a pronoun to express deference, and it creates confusion in some conversations (the portugues is explicit with "você"). I think it is a defect for an international (intercultural) language. That's why I'd rather use "ci" instead of "vi" with the same sense, and it's up to us to change his bad connotation.

When a french uses tu or vous with me there is no international communication.... we both exactly know what that means.

I think it is a defect for an international (intercultural) language.

Esperanto has many defects, not only this one. That doesn't entitle you to change it.

That's why I'd rather use "ci" instead of "vi"

I hope, you have already understood that this is not appropriate.

Tjeri:When a french uses tu or vous with me there is no international communication.... we both exactly know what that means.

I think it is a defect for an international (intercultural) language.

Esperanto has many defects, not only this one. That doesn't entitle you to change it.

That's why I'd rather use "ci" instead of "vi"

I hope, you have already understood that this is not appropriate.

Says who??

I will not be dictated by T-V cultures how to use Esperanto, especially since ci has NEVER been "officially" termed "the familiar form in Esperanto." The only mention of it I've ever seen is that in some cultures it can be interpreted as such, but as I said, T-V cultures will not dictate to me what I can and cannot use in Esperanto.