Re: Correction of correction, to be corrected

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

>Exactly what do you mean by being atist and not itist?

There are two possible interpretations of compound tenses in Esperanto:
one is aspectual, the other deals with simultaneity. In the first (itist),
estis -ata is a past Imperfect, and estis -ita a past Perfect. In the second
(atist), estis -ata is an Aorist (simple Past), and estis -ita a Pluperfect.
This has been a very vexed question in Esperanto, especially in the sixties;
the former school of thought is held by the majority and seems to be supported
by Zamenhofian usage; the latter is defended by speakers of Germanic languages
(English excepted), and some who fancy Esperanto as a "logical" language. I
point out the pupu is not a Perfect tense, but a pluperfect; similarly,
puca is not a past Imperfect (was -ing), but a simple past.

>One thing, though.  I don't think I agree that terminators are an
>abomination from hell.  Sure, they should be elided most of the time, but
>they're sometimes worth keeping even when they can be dropped.  And that
>goes double for cu.  

One of the problems in this language is establishing a standard style. In the
style I use, I regard unelided elidable terminators as a nuisance. We'll
have to see how far the force of analogy extends in this community.

BTW, as Mark pointed out, malseka is wet, not dry. I think I've still been
translating it correctly as to'e sudga in my Polish thingy.

Mark, do you want to put together a corrected version of the Marquis' journal?
I'm sorta busy with the brochure.

>Oh, and on an unrelated note:  was anything ever done about giving 'cevni'
>(god) a place for 'purview/bailiwick'?  I think it really makes sense.

It's in the new gismu list (1990). I used it in that manner.

nick.