Received: from mail-wg0-f57.google.com ([74.125.82.57]:42930) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2M8Y-0006kG-HW; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:13 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f57.google.com with SMTP id a1sf195014wgh.12; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type: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; bh=oA4Mb4z6gnOpw6GHrY8SHUlrOofT0WakARwmQbyoy2s=; b=EMzRFGxfs//6lKrbV9v10O1ZUMCjnNLczACvAFy+Mo8FeGEXNyrdYMgaNkiq/I9VJn mMae/2OcPcNrHs6LQpMdqaMsgafM+6I1YQBhVjf30qmLeJhir2n3bYlpYYmOSETq/eK9 TplGLt8FEzBbIF96kmm7Y764szcLiSdYUPT0Z0YmV1qHD02/l/yh3MNKLnLP2mjYg3a0 4KhKI8ClygPYexFDhhAIfslaCAF1feoOuBLKiGSoEQphReFWkCuglbUWR4Y7jo9JgUGg mi8FVZk7qHidiqEsjYty3tkAAUN0sqwElPPIO1+DmDTZIWPtTi7+glu7y/r9ThldsgaG nnhw== X-Received: by 10.180.9.173 with SMTP id a13mr48116wib.11.1419090003416; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:03 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.104.7 with SMTP id ga7ls331917wib.23.gmail; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.228.38 with SMTP id sf6mr1107864wic.5.1419090003085; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oi7si563022lbb.1.2014.12.20.07.40.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::229; Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id hv19so2215858lab.14 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.73.97 with SMTP id k1mr13394465lbv.78.1419090002962; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.78.9 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:40:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:40:02 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3274c87f010050aa7a3d5 X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c3274c87f010050aa7a3d5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:13 PM, wrote: > > On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote: >> >> >> "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}? > Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform. My assumption is that Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", "le .i", "le ii" and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: /lehi/, /le?i/, /le?ji/, /leji/, /lei/, /lej/. Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei". That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and for me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too close to /le?i/, closer than /leji/ is to /lej/, due to syllable count. I would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferred pronunciations, the first one for "le ii" and the second one for "lei". Now, if "ii" was not a Lojban word, things would be different, and we could give /lej/, /lei/ and /leji/ all to "lei", and /le?i/ and /le?ji/ to "le .i" but I'm working under the assumption that "ii" is a Lojban word and needs to be accomodated. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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. --001a11c3274c87f010050aa7a3d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:13 PM, <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:=
On Friday, December 19, 201= 4 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

"lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii" contra= st in number of syllables.=C2=A0

Then the situation is better than what I described.=C2=A0 But the= distinction between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuit= ous IMHO.=C2=A0 Wouldn't it be better to allow these two to be variants= of {lei}?

Well, it depends= on how much we're willing to reform. My assumption is that Lojban need= s to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", "le .i&q= uot;, "le ii" and "lei". We have six candidate pronunci= ations: /lehi/, /le?i/, /le?ji/, /leji/, /lei/, /lej/.

=
Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i&= quot; and /lej/ -> "lei".=C2=A0

That = leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and= for me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too close to /le?i= /, closer than /leji/ is to /lej/, due to syllable count.

I would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferred pronunciations, the= first one for "le ii" and the second one for "lei".

Now, if "ii" was not a Lojban word, things= would be different, and we could give /lej/, /lei/ and /leji/ all to "= ;lei", and /le?i/ and /le?ji/ to "le .i" =C2=A0 but I'm = working under the assumption that "ii" is a Lojban word and needs= to be accomodated.=C2=A0

mu'o mi'e xorxes=

--
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.
--001a11c3274c87f010050aa7a3d5--