Return-Path: Message-Id: From: cowan (John Cowan) Subject: Re: Nick turns dangerous reformist To: lojban-list Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 13:56:19 EDT In-Reply-To: <9104222345.19041@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU>; from "mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn" at Apr 23, 91 9:45 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13] Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Apr 23 13:57:00 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cowan nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (la nitcion.) writes: > as you know, I'm a conservative kind of guy, and coming from a sect as > fundamentalist as Esperanto, I do not take to reform lightly. But there > is an error in BAI that needs fixing. This error is {ci'a}. It has already > been possibly mistakenly used by John Cowan to translate 'by' (an article > {ci'a la djan. kau,n}). And the cmavo list translates it as author. This > is so wrong, I can't even begin to explain it. {ciska} does not denote > authorship, but inscriptor. When I say Beethoven wrote this sonata, I do > not use {ciska}, but {finti}. {ci'a} MUST preserve the semantics of {ciska}, > if there is to be any purpose to the BAI list. I agree with this, and I agree that ci'a is wrong. (Snivelling disclaimer: lojbab added that line to my piece.) However, I think that "cu'u" would serve the purpose here, or better yet "fi'o fanva" = "translated by". To give lojbab his due, he didn't know when he published the piece that it was a translation. > Do you all understand what I'm getting at? And btw, how many people ARE > on the cmavo review list? Everybody is on that list, at least everybody who receives JL. So blast away with your comments, please! -- cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban