From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jul 08 13:37:33 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzJYA-0000M5-32 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:37:14 -0700 Received: from web81313.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.39]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzJY7-0000Ly-WF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:37:13 -0700 Received: (qmail 94333 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Jul 2006 20:37:10 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=NBvO5h+kKx/Xj7ajPXngI/4qP+hqLG9eXovsVmQLOptzWpQDtmnpklriGUulZfNVvwxoOPYBtEVluR0JfNNwPT1xDIN5i10DHpMhPbP1cFXqtNsqR54MIEhAvNFlvHbUlQeenFqskiMP8rpcok31lV5Ubb+Vbxjydd++htTiO7g= ; Message-ID: <20060708203710.94331.qmail@web81313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.228.212] by web81313.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:37:10 PDT Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:37:10 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060708132924.01bc7b00@cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 12005 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Since I don't quite see how cultural neutrality (if possible) is involved in this question, I don't see why Lojban should be different from other languages in the way it treats foreign expressions. I used a lot of them in my work, from several languages that used the Latin alphabet, th9ough with different sounds than English, and several more that used different systems. In writing I just wrote them out as they were at home, if their alphabet was Latin, or in standard transceiption if not (Well, this was before Pinyin became a standard, so I used a dumbed down vwersion of Wade-Giles for Chinese - with the result that people kept saying "tey-o" for Dao). In speech I pronounced them as best I could(I flunked tones in African and Chinese Linguistics and in music class and I never got the vowels straightened out for languages with "pure" ones). I even occasionally deliberately exaggerated mispronunciation for effect. In short, I made it fairly clear that what I was saying or writing was foreign but I accomodated it to my English ("Goethe" is, depending on some intangible factors "Gerta" or "Gertha" or "Gayty," though I have a medal that says I can say it in Schuldeutsch.) I do the same in quoting English in Lojban -- when I am careful: what I quote is not quite what I ordinarily say in English, but it clearly isn't Lojban either. I suppose most others do similarly. In short, while I see the point of a phonetic auxiliary language for Lojban, I don't see the need for it. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.