tommjames:

Breto:

Tempodivalse:I think it is uncontroversial to say that ci is one of the very few Fundamento words which is totally moribund, to the point that its use in almost any context is stylistically erroneous.

Is it even a Fundamento word? The Vikipedio article Pronomo seems to think it is nefundamenta.

It's in the vortaro:

"ci tu, toi, | thou | du | ты | ty."

and is also mentioned in chapter 16 of the ekzercaro:

"Mi legas. ― Ci skribas (anstataŭ „ci” oni uzas ordinare „vi”)"

Huh. Learn something new every day.

Breto:

orthohawk:I will not be bullied. If anyone is offended by being called "ci" (or "thee" for that matter,) that person can avail himself of a very simple solution: don't speak to me.

I hate to break it to you, but you are being the bully here.

Bull. I'm not the one trying to shame others into speaking the way I want them to, calling them names about their not using "ci" etc.

Breto:Not to mention continuing to insist on derailing this thread after the question has been asked and answered. The question was "Do you use ci?" Your answer is obviously "yes". You have already explained why you use it and for what purpose.

Yes and that should have been the end of it, but no. The "politeness police" had to chime in with their snide comments about how they're offended over something that hasn't been an issue in 400 years, blah blah blah.

Breto:The rest of this vitriol is entirely off-topic.

If thee doesn't like seeing the vitriol tell the Offendands to keep their yaps shut when I answer a question that they did not ask.

Breto:If you really want to have this argument (again), feel free to make your own thread on the subject, where those who wish to argue can join you, and those who wish to use your simple solution and not speak to you can opt to ignore your thread.

"This argument" was initiated by others, not me (unless my answering the OP's post counts)

Tempodivalse:

Ci means 2nd person singular, nothing else. There is no need for another word with that meaning, so yes, that meaning of "vi" can be seen as now null and void, like it or not.

This is factually incorrect.

As I recall, Zamenhof included "ci" as a purely poetic form, in an attempt to mimic some of archaic "thou", such as when addressing a deity. There is some indication that he later regretted including it at all, and he always strongly advised speakers to avoid it.

However, even in archaic, poetic literature like La Biblio, Eneido, and Iliado, it is wholly absent - and has been from the earliest days of Esperanto.

I think it is uncontroversial to say that ci is one of the very few Fundamento words which is totally moribund, to the point that its use in almost any context is stylistically erroneous.

If you insist upon using the form anyway - well, your prerogative, although you are increasingly making yourself look unreasonable. The whole issue is really quite trifling.

That is the biggest pile. If it were trifling as thee claims, nothing would ever be said about it. So don't blow smoke.....well, thee knows where. to paraphrase the line from "the Nun's Story": you can fool your fellow forum members, but you cannot fool yourself, or God."

Breto:

Tempodivalse:I think it is uncontroversial to say that ci is one of the very few Fundamento words which is totally moribund, to the point that its use in almost any context is stylistically erroneous.

Is it even a Fundamento word? The Vikipedio article Pronomo seems to think it is nefundamenta.

Yes it is. It was introduced in the Ekzercaro section 16.

That is the biggest pile. If it were trifling as thee claims, nothing would ever be said about it.

I observe that you didn't address the content of my post.

I commented on this "trifle" only to point out a factual error, and to ensure that others don't get a wrong impression about the (in)appropriateness of ci.

You seem intent on making this a big deal, though, by continuing to respond heatedly rather than cool off and disengage - which is what I'm about to do.

For those who find the Esperanto handling of second person singular less than satisfactory (for whatever reason), there is always Ido (Internaciona Dualinguo di Omni).

Ido provides:
Tu= second person singular, familiar (for friends and family)
Vu= second person singular, formal

Before anyone decides to take offence and accuse me of saying "Esperanto, love it or leave it", I am doing no such thing.
I am simply providing information that people perhaps were not aware of.

Great idea. It sounds like Ido fits better with Orthohawk's religious beliefs, so he doesn't have to slum it with those of us who use "vi" as Zamenhof intended, for a second-person pronoun that is both singular and plural, just like "you" in English.

Perhaps I am missing something, but for the life of me, I cannot comprehend the reason behind the "heat" in this argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that "vi" means "you" (both singular and plural) for everyday speech, but that "ci" is available for poetic, stylistic, special-touch purposes, much like using the word "thou" would connote in today's English. Now:

1. Why would anybody be offended at being addressed by "ci" instead of "vi"? Is there some servile connotation here that I've missed? That just seems like an awfully petty thing to be offended about--in fact, I'm trying to figure out what's offensive about it at all.

2. Yes, if someone went around using "ci" all the time, the rest of us would wonder what he was trying to prove because, to put it nicely, it would seem eccentric....but so what? We see a lot of odd, quirky things that barely register a blip on the radar screen; how is this any different?

I'm not asking to throw gas on the fire; I'm really not getting the offensiveness and / or jaw-dropping bizarreness that this seems to involve--somebody please enlighten me.

To answer the original question---Yes, I would use "ci" to translate hymns, to write poetically, or to impart an "old-world" feel to something where the spirit and intent of what I was writing warranted it.

erinja:Great idea. It sounds like Ido fits better with Orthohawk's religious beliefs, so he doesn't have to slum it with those of us who use "vi" as Zamenhof intended, for a second-person pronoun that is both singular and plural, just like "you" in English.

See? this is exactly the kind of snide, mocking post I'm talking about (and it's not the first I've been subjected to). I had hoped a site administrator would behave better that this.

I will not be bullied, woman.

I will not be bullied, woman.

Just waiting for someone to quote 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
*sits back and eats crisps*