Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn Message-Id: <9104260852.29717@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU> To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Subject: Re: {ci'a} - in or not in? Cc: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au Organisation: Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Melbourne Smiley-Convention: %^) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 18:52:35 +1000 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Apr 26 11:58:54 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn Message-Id: From: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com (la djan. kau,n) >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}. >> 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. Lemme get this straight. LOJBAB SAID {ci'a}?! BURN HIM, BURN HIM, PUT HIM ON THE STAKE! %^) First {do smuni ma}, and now this. Tut tut. Well, nice to know even lojbab ain't perfect. %^) %^) My contention, however, is not just that {ci'a} is misused, but that it's misused becuase people need a calque for a concept which isn't in BAI, but is alluded to by 'author': a {finti} sumti tcita. >> 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! OK, here's my comment: I contend for argument's sake that {ci'a} is a sumti tcita that will not qualify many predications usefully enough to deserve a BAI lexeme (the sonata 'written down by' Beethoven's copyist), and that if we're to have a BAI lexeme to deal with autorship explicitly, a concept which I claim will indeed qualify many predicates (this gismo I invented, this pavane I composed, this essay I wrote), then a BAI grammeme based on {finti} deserves BAI space much more than {ci'a}. doi djan., you have the proposal I sent you; do you think "ci'a is wrong" as in misused, or as in doesn't deserve to be there? I know this is a significant proposal, and the proper reaction will be "let evolution decide if {ci'a} should be dropped, and use {fi'o} or {poi se finti}". But I stand by my comment. Reactions? Time for changing the cmavos is running out. co'omi'e nitcion.