Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:54896) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y27gE-00046n-Ju; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:14:00 -0800 Received: by mail-vc0-f189.google.com with SMTP id kv19sf197387vcb.16; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:13:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=uJ3S/NKuu92ZvyvjgTqgsku5EDaGShWnnc61G71/iHo=; b=SbqHNz7rDRLsM28Z4UiR0bfwBZwT6bG+109axX5ObX+o3ys41Zu/inr0QQbHfqXdGw yNt/Z1h2wgBA6aRYNZ6KPwDBOaoXFDEUH5TneK40qg0Qr5dc03/7p0TJLcePAhG9cQwg JudKbVVPisAJbAVyiqDklGqFYRBKmW+QmKPsM6T5iCqxvdMEZ/X90Ece7j8lk4VY9Koe cuy5JY6VpaDVtVgduqV4yB1ew2s6+ZbLtCgIXiUhWaeG0/JF2WFl4cpqTyMSXPvfhmhs imaMmjph0rvgCeRqc5/q9d5oxPDmmFBgjMfwQtTHEdPB+lTLicv3JY5f9cu4XRADGeo1 axbA== X-Received: by 10.50.164.166 with SMTP id yr6mr93853igb.15.1419034431466; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:13:51 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.138.167 with SMTP id qr7ls332134igb.34.canary; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:13:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.67.14.232 with SMTP id fj8mr8558202pad.16.1419034431291; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:13:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.163.71 with SMTP id z7msqax; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:13:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.36.134 with SMTP id p6mr29071qgp.16.1419027210676; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:13:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:13:30 -0800 (PST) From: maikxlx@gmail.com To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Cc: aburka@seas.upenn.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7317B43184D74BC1B4767AA54F8988EA@gmail.com> References: <548AC3CB.7090403@gmx.de> <580B9AB84B34485AB4139B921C46CF42@gmail.com> <3ED463A548E74A53BD8F2ECEF0C620F8@gmail.com> <14FDADF47D7841A39D612894E81CC89B@gmail.com> <20141214025736.GB19927@mercury.ccil.org> <20141214190350.GD29313@mercury.ccil.org> <5660b66f-68e1-4e9c-b4ce-1713a7bf1491@googlegroups.com> <7317B43184D74BC1B4767AA54F8988EA@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1024_1693559128.1419027210339" X-Original-Sender: maikxlx@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: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_1024_1693559128.1419027210339 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1025_900006958.1419027210339" ------=_Part_1025_900006958.1419027210339 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Friday, December 19, 2014 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, Alex Burka wrote: > > What makes {ii} and {uu} any worse than other glides? > In a nutshell, they're trickier. With all other Lojban diphthongs, the speaker is free to pronounce /i/ and /u/ as either semivowels or approximants at his/her discretion. However, a semivowel pronunciation of the initial glide in /ii/ and /uu/ would, by definition, merely result in /i:/ and /u:/ (slightly longer vowels). To avoid a long-vowel realization, therefore, /i/ and /u/ glides must be heightened to approximants-bordering-on-fricatives in those positions and only in those positions. This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide will make it sound much like /v/. Not many natural languages have a /w/-/v/ distinction to begin with, and the needless presence of /uu/ in the language makes that distinction tougher. The speaker has to pronounce a glide rather precisely in those positions to maintain proper contrastiveness. Likewise, the first /i/ in /ii/ will be prone to be pronounced as a fricative or even an affricate by some speakers with certain L1s. Thus /i/ can be confused with /dj/. It's natural for languages to either fortify or eliminate glides in sequences like /ii/ and /uu/. Glides sometimes get fortified as a matter of course. When some Spanish speakers say "yo" in their language I hear "Joe", even though they aren't really using the English J-sound, and Swedes do something similar with their "j". On the other hand, I have heard at least one English speaker pronounce "yeast" exactly like "east", removing the glide. In light of such examples, IMHO it would be far more sensible to remove /ii/ and /uu/, allowing /i/ and /u/ to remain _vowels_ or _semivowels_ in all positions, and also allowing diphthongs to be "drawled" into two syllables by speakers who have trouble with them. I was unaware of previous suggestions to remove them (since I am relatively > jbocitno) but I wouldn't be so quick to call "dropping the gavel" to remove > two very common attitudinals harmless! > Those two words could (and given reality probably must) remain as exceptions to the proposed new rule. On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 5:34 PM, wrote: >> >> My vote comes with the qualification that the special GV cases /ii/ and >> /uu/ be made illegal (as others have suggested). With all respect, it >> strikes me as perverse to be seriously considering whacking harmless >> syllables like /miu/ and /kua/ from cmevla when sequences like /lei/, >> /leii/, /leiii/ and /leiiii/ are all legal and contrastive, as are >> presumably /u'u/, /uu'u/, /u'uu/, etc. >> > > "leiii" and "u'uu" are not legal by camxes, which does not allow a glide > after a diphthong (so "lei,ii" is out) and does not allow a glide after the > apostrophe (so "u'uu" is out), > > "lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii" contrast in number of syllables. > Then the situation is better than what I described. But the distinction between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuitous IMHO. Wouldn't it be better to allow these two to be variants of {lei}? > > >> I would also advocate the following: >> >> - forbid GV in fu'ivla/ma'ovla except after /./ (word-initially). The >> pronunciation of disyllabic /ia/ and that of /i'a/ are too close. >> > > Would it be more distinct word-initially than in other positions? It > seems that .i,avla vs .i'avla are as distinct/undistinct as mi,avla vs > mi'avla. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > That's true, but there's no choice but to allow the contrast in that position given all the existing words, especially ma'ovla, starting with /.GV/. Despite that, it still may be wise to disallow GV in non-cmevla wherever it can be disallowed. IIRC La Mukti's impact report seems to show the new rule can be applied with a small but not a huge impact on the existing lexicon. Just my two cents. -- 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 email 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. ------=_Part_1025_900006958.1419027210339 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Friday, December 19, 2014 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, Alex Burka = wrote:
What ma= kes {ii} and {uu} any worse than other glides?

= In a nutshell, they're trickier.  With all other Lojban diphthongs,=20 the speaker is free to pronounce /i/ and /u/ as either semivowels or=20 approximants at his/her discretion.  However, a semivowel pronunciatio= n=20 of the initial glide in /ii/ and /uu/ would, by definition, merely=20 result in /i:/ and /u:/ (slightly longer vowels).  To avoid a long-vow= el realization, therefore, /i/ and /u/ glides must be heightened to approxi= mants-bordering-on-fricatives in those positions and only in those positions.  This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide= =20 will make it sound much like /v/.  Not many natural languages have a= =20 /w/-/v/ distinction to begin with, and the needless presence of /uu/ in=20 the language makes that distinction tougher.  The speaker has to=20 pronounce a glide rather precisely in those positions to maintain proper=20 contrastiveness.  Likewise, the first /i/ in /ii/ will be prone to be= =20 pronounced as a fricative or even an affricate by some speakers with certai= n L1s.  Thus=20 /i/ can be confused with /dj/. 

It's natural for languages to = either fortify or eliminate glides in sequences like /ii/ and /uu/.  G= lides sometimes get fortified as a matter of course.  When some Spanis= h speakers say "yo" in their language I hear "Joe", even though they aren't= really using the English J-sound, and Swedes do something similar with the= ir "j".  On the other hand, I have heard at least one English speaker = pronounce "yeast" exactly like "east", removing the glide.  In light o= f such examples, IMHO it would be far more sensible to remove /ii/ and /uu/= , allowing /i/ and /u/ to remain _vowels_ or _semivowels_ in all positions,= and also allowing diphthongs to be "drawled" into two syllables by speaker= s who have trouble with them.
 

= I was unaware of previous suggestions to remove them (since I am relatively= jbocitno) but I wouldn't be so quick to call "dropping the gavel" to remov= e two very common attitudinals harmless!

T= hose two words could (and given reality probably must) remain as exceptions= to the proposed new rule.



On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22= :22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 5= :34 PM, <mai...@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
My vote comes with the qualification that the special GV cases /ii/ and=20 /uu/ be made illegal (as others have suggested).  With all respect, it= =20 strikes me as perverse to be seriously considering whacking harmless=20 syllables like /miu/ and /kua/ from cmevla when sequences like /lei/,=20 /leii/, /leiii/ and /leiiii/ are all legal and contrastive, as are=20 presumably /u'u/, /uu'u/, /u'uu/, etc.
"leiii" and "u'uu" are not legal by camxes, which does not allow a glide after a diphthong (so "lei,ii" is out) and does not allow a glide after the=20 apostrophe (so "u'uu" is out), 

"lei", "le,ii= " and "le,ii,ii" contrast in number of syllables. 

Then the situation is better than what I describe= d.  But the distinction between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuitous = IMHO.  Wouldn't it be better to allow these two to be variants of {lei= }?

 
 
I would also=20 advocate the following:

- forbid GV in fu'ivla/ma'ovla = except after /./ (word-initially).  The pronunciation of disyllabic /i= a/ and that of /i'a/ are too close.

Would it be more distinct word-initially than in other positions?  It seems= =20 that .i,avla vs .i'avla are as distinct/undistinct as mi,avla vs=20 mi'avla.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

That's true, but there's no choice but to allow the contrast i= n that position given all the existing words, especially ma'ovla, starting = with /.GV/.  Despite that, it still may be wise to disallow GV in non-= cmevla wherever it can be disallowed.   IIRC La Mukti's impact report = seems to show the new rule can be applied with a small but not a huge impac= t on the existing lexicon.  Just my two cents.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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 ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_1025_900006958.1419027210339-- ------=_Part_1024_1693559128.1419027210339--