Re: {ci'a} - in or not in?

[cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn]

Message-Id: <m0jVRbC-0000ljC@snark.thyrsus.com>
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.