From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Aug 27 08:50:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19391 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2000 15:50:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Aug 2000 15:50:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Aug 2000 15:50:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.133] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Aug 2000 15:50:46 -0000 Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:50:46 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: World-historical and religious figures in Lojban Message-ID: <8obdcm+thm2@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <39A8CF80.BF94A9F@math.bas.bg> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 2644 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, Ivan A Derzhanski wrote: > pycyn@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 00-08-25 13:11:33 EDT, iad writes: > > << (What was the story about {-,dz.}? Is that acceptable? > > If not, I'll suggest {kunfu'ydz.}.) >> > >=20 > > I don't think it is, alas and I think there is nothing to > > prevent a thoroughly CV person from say /dIz/ for /dz/. >=20 > Then I conclude that {dz}, {dj}, {ts}, {tc} are unsuitable for > representing the affricates of other languages. In my opinion, {kunfu'ydz.} or even {kunfu'yz.} would be hardly acceptable - not for the Lojban morphology, but the sound=20 expressed by this form far far off from original pronunciation. I won't believe that lojban really restricts its users to names like=20 these (on the other hand allowing lujvo with consonant clusters that are - even for my German tongue! - near to unpronouncable).=20 This would be pretty strange for a conlang first of all meant for and dedicated to people! BTW, the forms {kundz.}, {kun.dz.} parsed, whereas {kunfu,dz.} didn't. (Even {dz.} - if I remember right - was accepted as cmene,=20 yet I'm not sure how reliable the parser works with regard to morphology. > I'm always annoyed by the way Nahuatl final _tl_ (as in the name > of Popocatepetl the volcano, or the language itself) is rendered > in Bulgarian as _t=F8l_ (with a schwa in the middle). They say this > is done because ` ' is not a permissible final cluster > in Bulgarian. My objection is that the Nahuatl _tl_ is an affricate... I also feel so, think of the initial _tl_ in Tlingit > It's three syllables in Chinese; I want that to come across. That's it: or at least two in Kung-tzu (which is *Master* Kung). > > It appears that the no ndz rule applies even to names, so juandz > > is out. The reasoning, I think, was that it was too hard to > > distinguish from simple nz for many speakers (hard to taime the > > nasalization to quick before the stop is released). This kindly caring might be okay for normal brivla, but hardly for Names, (see above!). =20 > (...)Fricatives do tend to become affricates after sonorant > consonants (nasals and liquids). Happens sporadically in German, but > is a rule in Yiddish (De _unser_ --> Yd _undzer_ `our', De _falsch_ > --> Yd _falch_ `false'); also in Mordvin and other languages. That's interesting, yet lojban shouldn't care too much ;) about that. >From the example of Austrian pronunciation of the word=20 _Tunnel_ (Germ.: about /tun,l/ Austrian: almost /tun,dl/) one perhaps might see that tendency also between nasals and liquids.=20=20 > Then let's try {juan,yz.}. Not! Pleeeeze! aulun.