Re: Nick turns dangerous reformist

[cowan (John 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