Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
Message-ID: <5160394B.4070509@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:03:39 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru
References: <515C66D0.60501@gmx.de> <5160157C.6020401@gmx.de> <e6704dcb-8cbd-49c4-801e-82b27388cb90@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <e6704dcb-8cbd-49c4-801e-82b27388cb90@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .iesk. cu cusku di'e
> I am undecided on which way I would prefer. Option b) is probably
> clearer than option a). And 'forethought {lu}/{li'u}' *is* a sensible
> interpretation of the function of those dashes.
>
> However: Lojban grammar does (as far as I know) *not* provide a way
> to indicate voice inflection [voice modulation? English is an L2 to
> me] in written text. Isomorphism has its limits. I'm quite sure that
> that has been clear from the beginning.
>
> The assumption
>
> (LASELPAhI:)>It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed
> to match.
>
> could easily be a first step in the wrong direction---leading to the
> 'Lojban has to be spoken in a monotonous computer voice' fallacy,
> couldn't it?
>
> (The fallacy I have in mind is: Lojban has a.v. isomorphism. Lojban
> has no voice-modulation cmavo or whatever. Thus, Lojban is to be read
> without voice modulation.)

I agree that this would be a bad conclusion. However, in Lojban it 
should technically be okay to pronounce "mi do viska" with a rising 
intonation or to have an expressionless face while saying ".u'i sai" or 
even to smile while saying "ui nai". You can scream or whisper, but it 
has no impact.

I'm not saying you must pronounce the text in a monotone voice; I'm 
saying voice shouldn't matter one way or the other.

> I don't see why reading (interpreting) the text with appropriate
> voice inflection would't be a Lojban performance. And that, I opine,
> could be the most pleasing kind of performance, to the listener.

It would be, yes.

My policy usually is: If the necessary words are there (e.g. ba'e, UI, 
.etc), then you may or may not choose to do something with your 
voice/pronunciation that reflects those words, but the text mustn't lose 
any information if you subtract from it all those nuances in your speech 
pattern.

> By the way: If we do take isomorphism (in the limited-thus-sensible
> sense) seriously, don't we then have to ask what it means that the
> text *doesn't* indicate speaker change by means of {lu}/{li'u} (while
> it could as well do so)? I mean, supposing of course that the
> translator did that on purpose and not by oversight, it could be a
> stylistically slightly weird text---like an English text without
> punctuation.

This one I think is much easier to answer. All you need to do is imagine 
an implicit "sei X cusku" in the appropriate places. This is perfectly 
fine, but as noted, it can be hard to follow in some places. The burden 
is on the reader (and their perfomance) moreso than on the listener.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.