orthohawk:

Kirilo81: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.

I didn't say "unfounded", but "linguistically unfounded", as you use the language in a way it simply doesn't work. It's just like I would decide to adress people smaller than 1,60m by "sinjoreto" and taller than 1,90m by "sinjorego". It may have its (philosophical, logical, physical) foundation, but it's just highly idiosyncratic.

Kirilo81:

orthohawk:

Kirilo81: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.

I didn't say "unfounded", but "linguistically unfounded", as you use the language in a way it simply doesn't work. It's just like I would decide to adress people smaller than 1,60m by "sinjoreto" and taller than 1,90m by "sinjorego". It may have its (philosophical, logical, physical) foundation, but it's just highly idiosyncratic.

It is linguistically unfounded to retain a difference between singular and plural? Well, heck, why not just get rid of -j, then? Use just ni for first person without reference to number? or just use ili for 3rd person.

And linguistic integrity is not my only reason for using "ci" but since religious beliefs are generally viewed with varying levels of dismissal or even contempt in Esperantujo (unless of course, they happen to be "more liberal than liberal"...apparently that's OK), I don't generally bring it up.

orthohawk: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 literature.

OK, we have been warned. Thanks.

By the way, could you please show us where "ci" is used in the Esperanto of the Quakers (Religia Societo de Amikoj). Take the pages of the Kvakera Esperanto-Societo, or any religious text where you could find "thee" in English.

Ondo:

orthohawk: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 literature.

OK, we have been warned. Thanks.

By the way, could you please show us where "ci" is used in the Esperanto of the Quakers (Religia Societo de Amikoj). Take the pages of the Kvakera Esperanto-Societo, or any religious text where you could find "thee" in English.

Brethren, not Quakers. FWIW I believe that aspect of plain speech was on its way out among most Quakers by the time Esperanto began to catch on among them. Most of the Quakers I know that do use "thee" don't speak Esperanto, so it's rather a moot point. The one that does (I introduced him to it) uses "ci" when we chat. Lucky for him I'm not part of the "offenderati"

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).

When I read/hear "thou/thee" etc. in normal speech, it slows my understanding and I automatically search for what emphasis or shade of meaning you're trying to imply. E.g. over-the-top sarcasm. This is just an instinct that you can't remove from any listener, in the same way that you can't change the fact that word re-ordering will usually lead to a perceived emphasis (there are many such things).

This is a pretty unavoidable situation with national languages, e.g. because some cultures will keep hold of "thou" or "ye" etc. making them normal expressions among those people. But that's not the case with Esperanto, we have commonly established usage and guidelines across all Esperantujo, which it feels like we should defend in order to maintain ease of communication.

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.

Also perhaps "linguistically unfounded" is the wrong phrase too. Of course some languages retain that distinction between singular and plural, so it's obviously linguistically sensible sometimes.

Buuuut it's ... Esperant-ily unfounded...? Just because I might enjoy some distinction in my national language, does not mean I should advocate that distinction in Esperanto, if there have been no widespread difficulties in expression with Esperanto's current tools.

orthohawk:

Kirilo81:I didn't say "unfounded", but "linguistically unfounded", as you use the language in a way it simply doesn't work. It's just like I would decide to adress people smaller than 1,60m by "sinjoreto" and taller than 1,90m by "sinjorego". It may have its (philosophical, logical, physical) foundation, but it's just highly idiosyncratic.

It is linguistically unfounded to retain a difference between singular and plural? Well, heck, why not just get rid of -j, then? Use just ni for first person without reference to number? or just use ili for 3rd person.

It's not about retaining something, it was never there in Esperanto. For reasons accepted by at least 95% of the esperantists Zamenhof wisely didn't introduce a distinction in the 2nd person. He left a door open by mentioning ci, but virtually no one wanted to use it, that's it.
The number distinction is least useful with the 2nd person, in my opinion a distinction between inclusive and exclusive 1st plural is a much more dire need.

-------

My mother tongue distinguishes between polite and non-polite address, and I sincerely envy the speakers of English having not to cope with this.

Dio, what a thread... My own views have been expressed by other people, so I won't bother writing them out.

Kirilo81:The number distinction is least useful with the 2nd person, in my opinion a distinction between inclusive and exclusive 1st plural is a much more dire need.

Arie de Jong, when he reformed Volapük in the 1920s, introduced this exact thing (ob = I, obs = we-exclusive, ogs = we-inclusive, og = you-or-I) but it didn't catch on. I imagine that were it to be introduced into Esperanto, it would die a similar death, or would persist pathetically at the fringe, like ci and na.

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.

Kirilo81:

orthohawk:

Kirilo81:I didn't say "unfounded", but "linguistically unfounded", as you use the language in a way it simply doesn't work. It's just like I would decide to adress people smaller than 1,60m by "sinjoreto" and taller than 1,90m by "sinjorego". It may have its (philosophical, logical, physical) foundation, but it's just highly idiosyncratic.

It is linguistically unfounded to retain a difference between singular and plural? Well, heck, why not just get rid of -j, then? Use just ni for first person without reference to number? or just use ili for 3rd person.

It's not about retaining something, it was never there in Esperanto. For reasons accepted by at least 95% of the esperantists Zamenhof wisely didn't introduce a distinction in the 2nd person. He left a door open by mentioning ci, but virtually no one wanted to use it, that's it.
The number distinction is least useful with the 2nd person, in my opinion a distinction between inclusive and exclusive 1st plural is a much more dire need.

-------

My mother tongue distinguishes between polite and non-polite address, and I sincerely envy the speakers of English having not to cope with this.

But that's just it, Kirilo, we DO have a 2ps pronoun (or at least some of us do) and it carries nothing of the T-V issue. I don't see why it must do so in Esperanto.