Mergatroid!

One would think I ate someone's dog!

I'm talking about the reactions i've been getting lately over my use of "ci" in Esperanto.  "Ci" was introduced by no less a personage than Zamenhof himself to be a 2nd person singular pronoun.  Granted, it's rarely used and is wrongly associated with informality (Zamenhof himself admitted that this nuance was from the outside influence of other languages).  It also happens to be convenient for distinguishing singular and plural in the 2nd person.  So why the fuss?

I've even had people tell me that the English counterpart (a la Quaker "Plain Speech", i.e. "theeing and thying") is offensive?  Sorry but I call BS.  This isn't the 1600s people!  Put on your big girl panties and deal with it ;).

Considering the reasons why the Quakers retained these older forms, it (insisting that being called "thee" is offensive and "please use "you" when talking to me") strikes me as arrogance, plain and simple.  Think about it:  back in the day, "thou/thee/thy" was used much as "tu" is nowadays in Spanish and French: with children, animals, subordinates, etc.  and "you" was used as an honorific, as a form of flattery or in biblical language, "respect of persons" (which, by the way is condemned in the New Testament).  So basically what these people are saying is "I insist that you treat me with a level of honor" one that they probably don't even deserve ;).

Why am I talking about this?  Well, as I told you all last time, recently I have adopted some Quaker practices as a way of advancing my spiritual life.  I look at a couple of these practices as religious obligations: it is my belief, that it is essentially untruthful to speak to one person with a plural pronoun for one thing.  The other is that, in my church tradition, we use "thou" in our prayers, and it struck me one day: by calling God "thou/thee" and calling my fellow humans "you" I was essentially (again, according to my belief) elevating man over God.   Now, whether you agree or think I'm a total loon is irrelevant. As the Quakers would say, "it is my leading and not thine".  Now, let's return to those poor souls offended by my calling them "thee"......what they're saying is that they are insisting that I bestow honor or respect upon them that I do not give to God.  Yeah, good luck with that!

Anyway, to get back to "ci", I use it when speaking Esperanto to one person.  No nuance of familiarity or contempt (oh, you'd know when I'm being insulting and it's not because I use "ci"!), just 2nd person singular, plain and simple.  I've been told, even, that this is "wrong."  Well, it's in the Fundamento.  Defined in the Universala Vortaro as 2nd person singular pronoun.  If that's the way I use it, then it can't be wrong, can it?

The other thing i've been accused of is "leading beginners astray".  Ha!  Not bloody likely with the "kontraŭ-ci-istoj" around!  Whenever I happen to post something in an Esperanto group using "ci" less than 2 seconds later some buttinski comes swooping in castigating me for it.  Yeah, no chance of komencantoj being led astray with that kind of thing going on!

And the nastiness about it!  Ho, mia kor'!  As I said above, one would think I just ate someone's dog!

So,
1.  This ain't the 1600s people, so stop with the "i'm offended" BS.  Calumny is wrong.
2.  If you must "warn" komencantoj, it is sufficient to say "'ci' is not used in everyday Esperanto even though you may meet some who insist on using it.  It is equivalent to the singular use of 'vi'."  Anything more than that is unnecessary, and, depending on what you say, can be considered bullying or even discriminatory.   Better is expected of samideanoj!