orthohawk:

RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:Says who??

Says Zamenhof.

Really? I don't see anywhere in Lingvaj Respondoj

Take another look. It's there. Scroll down to "Pri la pronomo "ci", roughly halfway down the page.

Here's my translation of Zamenhof's words

lingvaj respondoj:ABOUT THE PRONOUN "CI"

The non-use of "ci" is not at all an unconscious imitation of existing language - on the contrary, it is a special aspect of the language Esperanto, a special aspect based purely on practical considerations and explorations. The best way, of course, would be if we would say "vi" to more than one person and to one person always "ci", but all current cultured people have become so accustomed to the idea, that "ci" has something disrespectful in it, that we could never require from the Esperantists that they always say "ci" to one person, we would then have a separate pronoun of politeness (and such a pronoun actually existed in Esperanto prior to the year 1878.). But the practice of all existing languages showed that this sort of "polite form" was often very embarrassing, becauwe we often don't know how we should speak with this person or another (for example to a child, etc): "ci" seems to us possibly offensive, a pronoun of politeness sounds laughably ceremonial. In these occasions, existing languages use various strategies, which are, however, often very embarrassing, both for the speaker and the listener (for example, instead of "ci" and "vi" one would say "li", "oni", "sinjoro", "fraŭlo", etc.) To remove these embarrassments, there is only one solution: to say to all, everyone, and everythign only "vi". This can never cause misunderstanding, because in the very rare cases of unclarity we can add detail to our speech, saying "vi, sinjoro" or "vi ĉiuj, "vi ambaŭ", etc. For people who strongly feel the need of "ci" (for example, when they turn to God or to a beloved person), the use of "vi" seems disagreeable only at the beginning (then they are permitted to use "ci" ), but after some practice, one easily becomes accustomed to using "vi", that it makes you perfectly content and there is absolutely nothing "cold" found in it. Everything depends only on getting accustomed.
Respondo 28, La Revuo, 1908, Februaro

This is a pretty clear statement from Zamenhof not recommending "ci".

To me this is the point - there are many people of good will in the world. People of good will can disagree on what is polite or impolite behavior, especially when you have many cultures mixing. Polite behavior for one culture may be the exact opposite of polite behavior for another culture. Like RiotNrrd says - even if you are trying hard to be polite, if you know that something is likely to offend someone, why would you do it? In Esperanto, sometimes we make allowances for different cultures. Cultural misunderstandings can happen even among close friends, so if we know from the start that something is likely to be an issue, it's better to pick the safe choice than to risk offending someone just to make a point.

RiotNrrd:I

(non Zamenhofian citations snipped)
So, there you go. Either it isn't worth mentioning, or, if mentioned, is a word so quaint and/or archaic that no one uses it, OR it's used only for your very, very close circle of intimates, and otherwise to people of lower status or to animals. In those contexts, though, it's totally cool. So, when you're impatiently snapping your fingers at the busboy down at the Esperanto Cafe, use ci and really underscore the difference in your statuses. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.

I use "ci" in Esperanto and "thee" in English. It is THY hangup that causes thee to think me rude or offensive, and as I said before, THEE is the rude one in this case attributing false motives to my use of a certain pronoun. As much as we fight against the "Esperanto is just another European language" bull, I would think that a European attitude that was never imparted to the language by its compiler would be the LAST thing we would want around. Even Zamenhof himself attributes the T-V issue to outside cultural influence, not anything intrinsic to Esperanto.

I will continue to use "ci" (and "thee" ) and if anyone wants to ignore me or not talk to me, or otherwise treat me badly because of THEIR incorrect interpretation of my motives without even bothering to find out the truth, well they can just sod off. I don't have no time for knee-jerk, wannabe mind readers.

erinja:

orthohawk:

RiotNrrd:

orthohawk:Says who??

Says Zamenhof.

Really? I don't see anywhere in Lingvaj Respondoj

Take another look. It's there. Scroll down to "Pri la pronomo "ci", roughly halfway down the page.

Here's my translation of Zamenhof's words

lingvaj respondoj:ABOUT THE PRONOUN "CI"

(snipped to give me room)

Respondo 28, La Revuo, 1908, Februaro

This is a pretty clear statement from Zamenhof not recommending "ci".

To me this is the point - there are many people of good will in the world. People of good will can disagree on what is polite or impolite behavior, especially when you have many cultures mixing. Polite behavior for one culture may be the exact opposite of polite behavior for another culture. Like RiotNrrd says - even if you are trying hard to be polite, if you know that something is likely to offend someone, why would you do it? In Esperanto, sometimes we make allowances for different cultures. Cultural misunderstandings can happen even among close fri...

NOBODY will force me by their assumptions and mistaken ideas to violate my personal philosophy. If they're going to not bother finding out why I use ci and just stomp off in a huff like a 2-year-old, they are the problem not me.

I bow to the practical wisdom of orthohawk and vejktoro on how to use thee and ye, etc, in modern English. My (not so) inner know-it-all was dredging up archaic prescriptive grammar rules because I have no practical familiarity with modern uses of these words. In my daily life, thou/thee/thy/thine are just fossilized pronouns in family prayers, and ye is something that goes in front of a store name with an extra "e" on the end to make it look quaint. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the dialect I speak, and those dialects I hear regularly, use "you" pretty much exclusively.

As for the current topic: Does anyone else feel like this thread has devolved into both sides just repeating the same arguments, or is it just me?

orthohawk:NOBODY will force me by their assumptions and mistaken ideas to violate my personal philosophy. If they're going to not bother finding out why I use ci and just stomp off in a huff like a 2-year-old, they are the problem not me.

So to sum up an overly long discussion: You personal, linguistically unfounded philosophy is more important to you than basic rules of social behavior. I wish you luck.
I think this thread can die now.

Is it not the question why would someone want do so?
Is is not the case that one, by doing so, seperte oneself of the community by using words everybody else feels uncomfortable with?

Is it not the case that this might lead into a break-away?

I think this is not the way Esperanto was meant to be.
Zamenhof wanted an Esperanto the unifyies humans and peoples from different origins.

If we want to learn Esperanto we should accept and respect its philospohy and its community.
We should not learn Esperanto in order to seperate in small groups, but to build a big community, a community that represents Zamenhof's attitude, ideology and philospohy.

Of course, it is up to everyone how they express themself, no one wants to force someone else to do something someone else feels uncomfortable with.

We are all individuals and everybody has its personal attidudes but we are connected by a common aim, Esperanto. We should appreciate this connection.

Let's get practical, folks. How do I get reimbursed from Sezonoj because the publishers didn't get the ci's edited out in Amiko el la junaĝo before going to press.

sudanglo:Let's get practical, folks. How do I get reimbursed from Sezonoj because the publishers didn't get the ci's edited out in Amiko el la junaĝo before going to press.

Thank you, Sudanglo! We're getting to the point.

Sue them for what they did. If you don't receive justice in your own country, you might try appealing to the European Court of Human Rights. The corrupt judicial system may force you to seek asylum in a foreign Embassy. Try Ecuador.

And don't forget to carry the Verda Stelo and the Verda Standardo. We'll keep going with this discussion, so check with us for any new legal advice. We'll come to the barricades in your defence. Orthohawk will organize the cheerleaders for "ci".

sudanglo:Let's get practical, folks. How do I get reimbursed from Sezonoj because the publishers didn't get the ci's edited out in Amiko el la junaĝo before going to press.

Is there a valid reason for using "ci" in this work? I.e. is the use of "ci" for marking a bit of dialogue from e.g. a Quaker or a dialect speaker? If its use is to mark a characteristic of one of the players or is in some way integral to the plot, it belongs and it seems (to me anyway) needlessly pedantic to object to it.

By the way, if I ever get my set of stories based in the Brethren community published, I urge thee not to buy the book. They use "thee" (and thus in Esperanto, "ci" ) when speaking to one person. I would hate for thee to waste thy precious silver on such insulting and offensive literature.

Kirilo81:

orthohawk:NOBODY will force me by their assumptions and mistaken ideas to violate my personal philosophy. If they're going to not bother finding out why I use ci and just stomp off in a huff like a 2-year-old, they are the problem not me.

So to sum up an overly long discussion: You personal, linguistically unfounded philosophy is more important to you than basic rules of social behavior. I wish you luck.
I think this thread can die now.

Your assumption that my philosophy is unfounded is offensive.