From zefram@ytterbium.corpex.net Wed May 05 06:05:25 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 May 2004 06:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.167.169.36] (helo=ytterbium.corpex.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BLM5N-0004Jq-K0 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 06:05:17 -0700 Received: from zefram by ytterbium.corpex.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BLM5M-0002vp-00 for ; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:05:16 +0000 Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 13:51:34 +0100 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Why capital letters standing in for letterals is a *bad* idea. Message-ID: <20040501125134.GA1255@fysh.org> References: <20040430224308.GD14939@digitalkingdom.org> <20040430234418.78701.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040430234418.78701.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Zefram X-archive-position: 7651 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: zefram@fysh.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Jorge Llamb?as wrote: >> > Capitalizing the whole syllable doesn't look very nice anyway, >> >> In your opinion. > >In my opinion it looks horrible. I wonder if anyone really thinks >it looks very nice. I have a weak preference for capitalising the vowel alone over capitalising the whole syllable. Actually, I think both schemes look quite awful, in addition to being horribly wasteful of characters. We've got a whole extra 23 (or 5) letterals for a single purpose, namely indicating stress on a syllable, which is only rarely required at all. I'd much prefer an orthography using a single extra mark (say, "^") to indicate stress where necessary, just as we have a single extra mark (",") to indicate syllable breaks. -zefram