Received: from mail-ob0-f183.google.com ([209.85.214.183]:65233) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2SVV-0004jB-5b; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:28:19 -0800 Received: by mail-ob0-f183.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf4053249obc.0; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:28:10 -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=gBqIMu8wi1VWdauGjGQIdySzkaGOIwaLHM20Zmuf3VA=; b=ZJc2KVHKA8lWO9o55qMqjQkuhL2mBjhCbD0FqlwhUb9s1rqJP1EHqzhoUaaKctwof7 00RuSyDpmg5C0aAmAMyIkQtiKLUwSJNzUWKnPT5oVoeuFrv/GR68k4pBiTE4aMEwupfh jDKZxNF1cIWBA6D1sKuKerljFOfojNU+BOS/T0nT6Cr/c+NQHTx3LBxwXktgC8+1IuPr nR/JZJj7uq/jimmujsnQhkGKJXCmU6ID1dLpZC+MrLO0zXv9glXlp+p47ewZdw2A3FHU dZlfwvtlfHVpTQcry9tQ+iL6J9T9zOEAB7c5BGm8Bdbbjg9ygcvUBj1Wh6GlWh3VEqtf 6IfQ== X-Received: by 10.140.94.150 with SMTP id g22mr274740qge.0.1419114490617; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:28:10 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.17.115 with SMTP id 106ls115324qgc.57.gmail; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:28:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.23.67 with SMTP id q3mr11628745qab.7.1419114490445; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:28:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.163.71 with SMTP id z7msqax; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:41:01 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.28.180 with SMTP id 49mr103071qgz.4.1419108061464; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:41:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:41:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Mike S." To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Cc: aburka@seas.upenn.edu, cowan@mercury.ccil.org Message-Id: <9d32b667-8feb-45c9-97e2-f6ea0a771947@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20141220015319.GA22447@mercury.ccil.org> References: <20141214190350.GD29313@mercury.ccil.org> <5660b66f-68e1-4e9c-b4ce-1713a7bf1491@googlegroups.com> <7317B43184D74BC1B4767AA54F8988EA@gmail.com> <20141220015319.GA22447@mercury.ccil.org> Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_499_1588748910.1419108061164" 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_499_1588748910.1419108061164 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_500_1151623091.1419108061169" ------=_Part_500_1151623091.1419108061169 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:53:25 PM UTC-5, John Cowan wrote: > > mai...@gmail.com scripsit: > > > 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 reason /wu/ works well in English is that for the last sixty years > /u/ has been moving forward in all or most accents, whereas /w/ has > remained fully back. Consequently, even the semivowel pronunciation of > /w/ won't blend into the following /u/. > You're right, and it's easy to verify when I try to form a glide directly from my /u/. My /u/ is still nearer to [u] than to [y], but it's definitely not cardinal. Some time ago I encountered analyses of English vowels in which /i/ and /u/ were represented as just two more diphthongs "iy" and "uw" (i.e. lax vowels + glides [Ij] & [Uw]). This is probably the general reason why words like "yeast" work, and why /u/ is drifting frontward. That suggests that Lojban /ii/ and /uu/ might work if the second vowels could be lax, but lax vowels are probably just as problematic as fricative-bordering /i/ and /u/. We're agreed that the best thing is to rule against /ii/ and /uu/ anywhere outside of the two aforementioned cmavo. Another possibility is that the anomalous /ii/ and /uu/ words are optionally pronounced as two glides separated by a brief schwa, effectively as */iyi/ and */uyu/. This optional pronunciation might be preferred by some speakers, and should be made available IMHO. On Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, xorxes wrote: > > > 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. > Five out of eleven so far have voted to strike {.nitcion.}, {.buenosaires.} and {.xuan.} from the language, which is at least as radical a reform as anything else that has been suggested, I'd say. > 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 > > I agree with John Cowan's points -- to me it's questionable whether Lojban can preserve self-segregation while allowing initial glides without the glottal stop in fluent speech, given such possible sequences like /le ia/ and /lei ia/. Maybe it can, so long as we forbid CGV in all non-cmevla (which I think is a good idea anyway). But that seems to me to be a separate issue from forbidding /ii/ and /uu/ outside the two exceptions, and from the idea of preserving {.nitcion.} while allowing it to be pronounced either ['ni.tSjon] or ['ni.tSi.jon], which is the main idea that I was trying to suggest. mi'e .maik. mu'o -- 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_500_1151623091.1419108061169 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:53:25 PM UTC-5, Joh= n Cowan wrote:
mai...@gmail.com scripsit:

> 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 th= e=20
> language makes that distinction tougher.       &nbs= p;                    

The reason /wu/ works well in English is that for the last sixty years
/u/ has been moving forward in all or most accents, whereas /w/ has
remained fully back.  Consequently, even the semivowel pronunciati= on of
/w/ won't blend into the following /u/.
You're right, and it's easy to verify when I try to f= orm a glide directly from my /u/.  My /u/ is still nearer to [u] than = to [y], but it's definitely not cardinal.  Some time ago I encountered= analyses of English vowels in which /i/ and /u/ were represented as just t= wo more diphthongs "iy" and "uw" (i.e. lax vowels + glides [Ij] & [Uw])= .  This is probably the general reason why words like "yeast" work, an= d why /u/ is drifting frontward.  That suggests that Lojban /ii/ and /= uu/ might work if the second vowels could be lax, but lax vowels are probab= ly just as problematic as fricative-bordering /i/ and /u/.  We're agre= ed that the best thing is to rule against /ii/ and /uu/ anywhere outside of= the two aforementioned cmavo.

Another possibility is that the anoma= lous /ii/ and /uu/ words are optionally pronounced as two glides separated = by a brief schwa, effectively as */iyi/ and */uyu/.  This optional pro= nunciation might be preferred by some speakers, and should be made availabl= e IMHO.

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, xorxes w= rote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:13 PM, <mai...@gmail.com> 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= =20 between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuitous IMHO.  Wouldn't it be=20 better to allow these two to be variants of {lei}?

Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform.

Five out of eleven so far have voted to strike {.nitcio= n.}, {.buenosaires.} and {.xuan.} from the language, which is at least as r= adical a reform as anything else that has been suggested, I'd say.
 = ;
 
My assumption is that=20 Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", "le .i", "le=20 ii" and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: /lehi/, /le?i/,=20 /le?ji/, /leji/, /lei/, /lej/.

Obviously /lehi/ -&= gt; "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei". 
That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and for=20 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 f= irst 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=20 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= =20 and needs to be accomodated. 

mu'o mi'e xorxe= s

I agree with John Cowan's points -- to me it's questionable wh= ether Lojban can preserve self-segregation while allowing initial glides wi= thout the glottal stop in fluent speech, given such possible sequences like= /le ia/ and /lei ia/.  Maybe it can, so long as we forbid CGV in all = non-cmevla (which I think is a good idea anyway).  But that seems to m= e to be a separate issue from forbidding /ii/ and /uu/ outside the two exce= ptions, and from the idea of preserving {.nitcion.} while allowing it to be= pronounced either ['ni.tSjon] or ['ni.tSi.jon], which is the main idea tha= t I was trying to suggest.

mi'e .maik. mu'o

--
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_500_1151623091.1419108061169-- ------=_Part_499_1588748910.1419108061164--