From lojbab@lojban.org Sun May 28 00:12:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28474 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 07:12:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 May 2000 07:12:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 May 2000 07:12:28 -0000 Received: from bob (46.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.46]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4S7CP038652; Sun, 28 May 2000 03:12:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000528030210.00b44100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 03:14:02 -0400 To: "Alfred W. Tüting" , lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: coi rodo - mi'e .aulun. In-Reply-To: <8gpiuq+cdvj@eGroups.com> References: <20000527193726.12417.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 10:41 PM 05/27/2000 +0000, Alfred W. Tüting wrote: >Jorge, >thanks for the infos. O.K., it's quite clear now how the Chinese >transcription can be done: > >Unaspirated/aspirated consonant pairs should be written about as in >pinyin: >djuan/tcuan (pinyin: zhuan/chuan) >djin/tcin (pinyin: jin/qin) >dz./ts. (pinyin: zi/ci) >dzy/tsy ( (pinyin: ze/ce) >and (no pairs existing): >cy (pinyin: she) >c. (pinyin: shi W.-G.: shih) >sy (pinyin: se) >s. (pinyin: si) > >y, y-, -y,-y- ( (pinyin: -e etc.): >as in y, yn, ly, uyn, fyn. (pinyin: e, en, le = ¼Ö, wen, feng) When we made the Lojban gismu, we had as a tool a publication of the Chinese government giving their preferred IPA equivalents for the pinyin characters, which we mapped to their nearest Lojban equivalent. There is a complete such chart. I could post this (and/or put it on the website). Unfortunately, this official mapping led to severe collision because so many pinyin letters mapped to schwa; we also did not at the time understand how C+i sounded (e.g. pinyin "zi"), though I have since had this clarified. If we had it to do over again, we would map "ong" to "on(g?)" and not to "yn". The g is questionable because Lojban maps the /ng/ consonant to /n/. As someone noted, if the g is present it is pronounced separately from the n. But the real problem is that in gismu making we could have ended up with the g and not the n in the Lojban word, and the g by itself without the n is probably useless to a Chinese speaker for recognition. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org