Je 10.21 atm 2007.02.14, James CHANDLER skribis
>Steve skripted:
> >Also, Occ NEVER used yo as both subject and object,
>so far as I know. The
>object form is "me."
>Believe it or not, I did actually check that little
>fact before posting, in the H. Jacob book PAL, the
>chapter on Occ is here and there is no mention of
>distinct object pronouns:
>On the other hand, a quick Google found this page
>where "me" does seem to be used as object:
>So which is the truth?  Can anyone confirm this?

William Gilbert, former member of the Occidental Senate, in his book 
"Planlingvaj Problemoj" (La Laguna: Stafeto, 1962) has the following 
pronoun lists on p. 82:

Subject yo, tu, il, ella, it, noi, vu, ili

Object  me, te, le, la, it, nos, vos, les (los, las)

>Let me clarify my position:
>1) I will not entertain the idea of distinct object
>pronouns, as case distinctions are generally
>de-emphasized in Medilingua

No, what you mean is that case distinctions are generally emphasized 
in Medilingua through syntax rather than morphology.

>2) If io is bad as an object pronoun (this may be a
>matter of taste, as I personally quite like it), then
>me/mi are equally bad as subject pronoun, except we
>then have the added problem that educated westerners
>tend to perceive these as reminiscent of pidgin
>languages, which harms (to my mind) the credibility of
>the IAL idea

I have never encountered anyone, in almost fifty years of speaking a 
language that uses "mi" as a subject, who expressed this 
misconception. You are, I suppose, thinking of "me Tarzan, you Jane"; 
but most people have no problem understanding that different 
languages have different rules.

>3) If I can't have io I would choose mi, but that is
>needed in the Medi system as a possessive pronoun, so
>io (or perhaps yo) seems like the best bet

This should not be a problem.

Opinions (in English):
Esperanto (in English):
Literaturo (Esperante):