Received: from mail-wi0-f191.google.com ([209.85.212.191]:34943) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xgi3N-0007JD-HI; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:29 -0700 Received: by mail-wi0-f191.google.com with SMTP id hi2sf199780wib.18 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tu16apzn49xiT06PTh62GG9+bXDxOrw5zdq3ZcWbgcY=; b=lhfArHpjU1BO3Hc1C1+KnaVbaRgoNMqHGr367kGsq/dGAgj2j0hflih/ONxv9hZLNv yySDinjWwUXJpGB1blkycvcEwuSD3XTgam5GdNU3Z6R1BuCUiaFrp5+CzHXASP6xvhD+ YKnH0HGueygSNrCVCtq+lw7tnWNyFbDEiRJWsRyHCtaRYulveJ9ggSBTlIy0zP+/H87L YftKrU7F76Fwix2j3VV+swDqvXY7yBvhSMwrNxXfTY6oIzGQtznFYuEk6gsmekynaX5n oyQg5xOiizGyH/114aUruzjLUeSrftj5Mv/kR8Y2o1A86m1zK18QWG5laFzDJ358imku XUzQ== X-Received: by 10.180.90.51 with SMTP id bt19mr122432wib.19.1413931034009; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.107.70 with SMTP id ha6ls77762wib.51.gmail; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.19.198 with SMTP id h6mr4030974wie.5.1413931033773; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ej8si14372wib.3.2014.10.21.15.37.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::232; Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a1so2460968wgh.33 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.93.37 with SMTP id cr5mr1163055wib.76.1413931033678; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.224.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l9sm489744wia.0.2014.10.21.15.37.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5446E01C.6030308@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 23:37:16 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form References: <5444FEBF.10200@gmx.de> <544507CD.9050608@gmail.com>

<54462205.3070605@gmail.com> <20141021181158.GQ14499@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20141021181158.GQ14499@mercury.ccil.org> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - John Cowan, On 21/10/2014 19:11: > And Rosta scripsit: > >> It sounds like there are all these exceptions because the rule is >> wrongly formulated. If syllables are discarded and the metrical units >> are instead AEIOU clusters, might the rule become exceptionless? > > It would get worse: we would have to have an exception for words like /s= tabaa/ > explaining why it is /sta'baa/ rather than /'stabaa/. Is /stabaa/ an alternative notation or analysis for /staba'a/? If not, what= is it? If it is, then we just need a suitable definition of AEIOU cluster:= either we say that /'/ is phonologically visible, in which case it can't b= e cluster-internal (since it is not an AEIOU), or we take 'AEIOU cluster' a= s a primitive rather than derived term, and have a rule of apostrophe-inser= tion between phonologically distinct but contiguous AEIOU clusters. >> Obviously it was the glideless /ae, ea, aa/ type that led to Lojban's >> "'". That in itself was not so bad a move, tho the choice of realization >> was, but making it contrastive with zero between other vowels gives >> greater headaches. I'd have just forbidden them altogether; going all >> Livagian on their ass, I'd allow i to be followed by any vowel but i, >> u to be followed by any vowel but u, e to be followed by no vowel but i, >> o to be followed by no vowel but u, and a to be followed by no vowel >> but i and u. > > This would, of course, involve a complete discarding of the cmavo list an= d > starting over. A certain revision, rather than a complete discarding. You could convert to= new forms by rule, /e'V/ to /eiV/, /o'V/ to /ouV/, /i'V/ to /iV/, /u'V/ to= /uV/, some other rule for /a'V/, and sort out the newly created homophones= , perhaps by making use of a /aiV/:/auV/ contrast. But to be more realistic and hence more conservative, my reading of what xo= rxes said camxes does, namely make every string analysable as a sequence of= CVs, sounds like the best rule. John Cowan, On 21/10/2014 19:08:> And Rosta scripsit: > >> Is the concern that because /./ is elidable when its presence is not >> morphologically contrastive, the risk is that through habit it would >> end up being elided even when it is? > > Just so. > >> a problem with that is that it is hard to carefully and deliberately >> show that one is using a properly /./-less form. > > Indeed. This is a wider problem with /./, isn't it. A solution would be to make glo= ttal-stop elision illicit. =20 >>> In any case, I was talking about "a ua" [a?wa] as hard to distinguish >> >from "a'ua" [ahwa], both tending to become simple [awa]. >> >> Specifically for L1 English speakers, you must mean, rather than for >> people in general. Does it really make sense to base the rules of >> Lojban on the specific needs of L1 English speakers? > > Both [W] and the cluster [hw] are rare in the world's languages compared > with [w], so it's not too surprising that most varieties of English have > lost them. I think [hw] is virtually inarticulable. I don't know if anybody knows the = frequency of [W] or any other phone in the world's languages. The fact that= it's rare as the primary allophone of a phoneme doesn't mean it's rare as = a phone. (E.g. bilabial trills are rare as primary allophone of a phoneme i= n world's languages, but the phone is still to be heard in English words fo= r quite a few speakers.) But anyway, rather than [aWa] tending to become [awa] and hence neutralized= with /aua/, it could instead become the far more innocuous [aWua]. >> Many L1 English speakers would tend to hear /a.ua/ as /at ua/. > > Lojban /t/ is problematic for anglophones in general, given the North > American (i.e majority) tendency to voice it between vowels and to > glottalize it between a vowel and a syllabic consonant. What is worse, > all anglophones tend to hear [t] (as opposed to [t_h]) as /d/. (Most but not all.) > I don't think we can do anything about this. We could specify aspirated realizations for /ptk/ and voiced for /bdg/. =20 >> If /'/ is to be kept distinct from /x/, /'/ must be [T], giving [aTua] >> for /a'ua/, which is unlikely to become [awa]. > > I'm not sure if this is meant to be an anglophone or a universal claim. A universal phonetic claim. > Anglophones tend to render [x] as [k], as in _loch, bach, Bach_, and > Germans have no problem distinguishing /h/ and /x/ systematically, > though it's arguable that there are no [h] : [x] minimal pairs, as [h] > is only in onsets whereas /x/ in onsets is realized (in the standard > accent, at least) as /C/. For phonetic reasons, [h] is possible only between vowels sufficiently open= that the narrowest constriction of the vocal tract is at the glottis, so e= & a but not i, u, o. Frication (turbulence) occurs at the locus of narrowe= st constriction. Any posterior fricative will tend strongly to assimilate to [C] in environm= ent [i _ i] and to [W] (or labialized [x_w]) in environment [u _ u]. >> It would be an assimilation rather than a fortition. As I've said >> before, [h] is articulatorily impossible as a realization of /'/ >> in some environments, e.g. /i'i/, at ordinary speech rates, > > I articulate /i'i/ as [iCi], /u'u/ as [uWu], /ii/ as /j\i/ (with a voiced > palatal fricative like Spanish-Spanish "y"), and /uu/ as [wu]. How about /ixi/ and /uxu/? --And. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.