Received: from mail-la0-f55.google.com ([209.85.215.55]:55983) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y74BH-0005i5-S6; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:30:30 -0800 Received: by mail-la0-f55.google.com with SMTP id q1sf1938427lam.10; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:30:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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=9oX3xF4LzX5FpRlzp6maSpgV0ld2iVJGwQQlURJIj30=; b=XhtbnCsloNTMstz2TzJlT26JKfUsf2hOaFsuzVxlAlFoBu01df5A1jARN8cpJiRuIY 6WIvBNRzIqSDrUZuEBfmTA7vwEcvZMKRM3CP1J7zFSTzk1q1ttn9uIPOQb/6Pac5WqAX SI4EnREyR7TnO4aN2JLsKGoaAxWDsnVNl3rVdx26L56kMSiakNJACE82zoO2RPmTCaYt HheFxnCgnzwNsoynIZWNnYHrpMCo9yQ6ZQnkoicqa5Dh/88SSwKQ6bk3hdlJ94FZpmdC kQo5IBR8yHdRiovGDaHrPnB2Sxs8Kkm7N3Y1fkztKiVkeKA6UCSQJhiD2GdpwCPs+Bpf iepA== X-Received: by 10.181.8.229 with SMTP id dn5mr408567wid.21.1420212620916; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:30:20 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.97.233 with SMTP id ed9ls2424726wib.11.gmail; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:30:20 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.181.13.147 with SMTP id ey19mr8118924wid.2.1420212620606; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f6si2791654wiv.0.2015.01.02.07.30.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d; Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id b13so24513879wgh.18 for ; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:30:20 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.104.196 with SMTP id gg4mr32954823wjb.31.1420212620444; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:30:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 07:30:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141214190350.GD29313@mercury.ccil.org> <5660b66f-68e1-4e9c-b4ce-1713a7bf1491@googlegroups.com> <7317B43184D74BC1B4767AA54F8988EA@gmail.com> <20141220015319.GA22447@mercury.ccil.org> <9d32b667-8feb-45c9-97e2-f6ea0a771947@googlegroups.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 07:30:00 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d83fcbf490a050bad04cc X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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: - --089e010d83fcbf490a050bad04cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 i proposed it for influ'enza and i already added it. 2015-01-02 6:03 GMT-08:00 guskant : > The poll was closed on December 27, 2014. The winner is > > 2. disallow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla. > > I will create a BPFK page about this agreement. Please modify la > camxes so that it as well as la jbovlaste conforms to it. > > There is a concomitant problem that some fu'ivla/cmevla and > experimental ma'ovla in la jbovlaste are now invalid. I remember that > la gleki proposed adding an apostrophe between Cg and V. I don't agree > to it because that may produce conflicts between some words, and > transform some fu'ivla into lujvo. I would prefer giving them > automatically "100000 down-votes" just like the inverse of official > words, and notifying the creators of them of the reason. Any idea? > > > 2015-01-02 17:05 GMT+09:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > Can such a morphology be imagined (without too much damage to existing > lujvo > > and cmavo but ignoring possible damage to fu'ivla) that {'} in cmavo can > be > > pronounced as {i}? > > E.g. {.i'a} could be also pronounced as {.iia} as opposed to {.i.ia}. > > The reason of asking this is that some people are complaining at the high > > level of fricatives, namely, glottal and velar ones. > > > > 2014-12-20 23:41 GMT+03:00 Mike S. : > >> > >> > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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. --089e010d83fcbf490a050bad04cc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
i proposed it for influ'enza and i already added it.

2015-01-02 6:= 03 GMT-08:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
The poll was closed on December 27, 2014. The winne= r is

2. disallow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla.

I will create a BPFK page about this agreement. Please modify la
camxes so that it as well as la jbovlaste conforms to it.

There is a concomitant problem that some fu'ivla/cmevla and
experimental ma'ovla in la jbovlaste are now invalid. I remember that la gleki proposed adding an apostrophe between Cg and V. I don't agree<= br> to it because that may produce conflicts between some words, and
transform some fu'ivla into lujvo. I would prefer giving them
automatically "100000 down-votes" just like the inverse of offici= al
words, and notifying the creators of them of the reason. Any idea?


2015-01-02 17:05 GMT+09:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
> Can such a morphology be imagined (without too much damage to existing= lujvo
> and cmavo but ignoring possible damage to fu'ivla) that {'} in= cmavo can be
> pronounced as {i}?
> E.g. {.i'a} could be also pronounced as {.iia} as opposed to {.i.i= a}.
> The reason of asking this is that some people are complaining at the h= igh
> level of fricatives, namely, glottal and velar ones.
>
> 2014-12-20 23:41 GMT+03:00 Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:53:25 PM UTC-5, John Cowan wrote: >>>
>>> mai...@gmail.com scrip= sit:
>>>
>>> > This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide = will make
>>> > it sound much like /v/.=C2=A0 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 six= ty years
>>> /u/ has been moving forward in all or most accents, whereas /w= / has
>>> remained fully back.=C2=A0 Consequently, even the semivowel pr= onunciation 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/.=C2=A0 My /u/ is still nearer to [u] than to [y], but = it's definitely
>> not cardinal.=C2=A0 Some time ago I encountered analyses of Englis= h vowels in
>> which /i/ and /u/ were represented as just two more diphthongs &qu= ot;iy" and "uw"
>> (i.e. lax vowels + glides [Ij] & [Uw]).=C2=A0 This is probably= the general reason
>> why words like "yeast" work, and why /u/ is drifting fro= ntward.=C2=A0 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/.=C2=A0 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<= br> >> optionally pronounced as two glides separated by a brief schwa, ef= fectively
>> as */iyi/ and */uyu/.=C2=A0 This optional pronunciation might be p= referred 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, <mai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrot= e:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii&= quot; contrast in number of syllables.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then the situation is better than what I described.=C2=A0 = But the distinction
>>>> between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gra= tuitous 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.
>>
>>
>> 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/ -> &quo= t;le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei".
>>>
>>> That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for &quo= t;le ii", and
>>> for me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too cl= ose 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&quo= t;.
>>>
>>> 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 =C2=A0but I'm working under the as= sumption 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 questionabl= e whether Lojban
>> can preserve self-segregation while allowing initial glides withou= t the
>> glottal stop in fluent speech, given such possible sequences like = /le ia/
>> and /lei ia/.=C2=A0 Maybe it can, so long as we forbid CGV in all = non-cmevla
>> (which I think is a good idea anyway).=C2=A0 But that seems to me = to be a
>> separate issue from forbidding /ii/ and /uu/ outside the two excep= tions, and
>> from the idea of preserving {.nitcion.} while allowing it to be pr= onounced
>> either ['ni.tSjon] or ['ni.tSi.jon], which is the main ide= a 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.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups
> "BPFK" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send= an
> email to b= pfk-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.

--
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-li= st+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.

--
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.
--089e010d83fcbf490a050bad04cc--