On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at= 5:57 AM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:

> lojbanic principles? = I remember one of the big deal ones being that for a
> given speech stream, there is one spelling for it, and vice versa.

Audiovisual isomorphism should by no means get in the way of, e.g., presenting information in tables or sidenotes, or writing concrete poetry.<= br> A printed text need not correspond to a single linear stream of utterances.=

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 12 March 2012 01:06, Marjorie Scherf <skaryzgik@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 21:35, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Point? =A0You don't use footnotes in spoken anything. =A0In wr= itten anything,
>> you use the standard footnote conventions. =A0Loglan long ago (196= 0) had an
>> array of typesetting cmavo which were soon discarded as totally >> irrelevant;why bring them back?
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>
>
> So if I'm understanding John correctly here, I can write a book in= (or
> translate a book into) lojban, use little asterisks or superscript num= bers,
> and have the matching ones at the bottom of the page, and it would sti= ll be
> considered good, grammatical lojban?
>
> At first this is surprising, but when I try to think up my objections,= they
> seem to come down to orthography rather than grammar. For example, an<= br> > orthography which didn't use "Arabic" numerals probably = wouldn't use them to
> mark footnotes, at least not in the ordered, numerical way they are me= ant
> when they are used with the Roman letters typically used for English. = Though
> the same symbols may well be commandeered for use as random symbols to= be
> used like asterisks. Though I don't know any actual standard conve= ntions for
> such things in other than English, so I could be wrong even about this= . But
> my point with this hypothetical example is that typesetting is much mo= re
> closely linked to the orthography than the grammar. Supposing I or som= eone
> else made a whole new orthography that worked entirely differently tha= n
> anything I've actually seen or heard of before, I'd have the e= xact same
> typography questions to answer all over again anyway.
>
> So I suppose the question becomes, then, would an orthography (includi= ng
> such typesetting conventions) be considered "valid" accordin= g to the various
> lojbanic principles? I remember one of the big deal ones being that fo= r a
> given speech stream, there is one spelling for it, and vice versa. Tho= ugh it
> has been a while since I read those things, and I might not be remembe= ring
> it or it's accepted interpretation correctly.
>
> .imu'omi'e .skaryzgik.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubs= cribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.