From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Sun Dec 1 00:35:50 1991 Return-Path: Date: Sun Dec 1 00:35:50 1991 Message-Id: <9111302357.AA10778@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: onomastic etiquette in lojban X-To: C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Ken Taylor In-Reply-To: CJ FINE's message of Sat, 30 Nov 91 14:32:33 GMT <27073.9111301432@mail.bradford.ac.uk> Status: RO > From: CJ FINE > > Ivan says: > > > > if you need a standard, isn't {j} a much better one? Its chances > > to be mistakenly stripped off the end of a lojbanised name are much > > lower than those of {s}. > > > <...> There is something in me which is repelled by > all those English names turning into But that is exactly how it must be. If a lojbanised English name sounds drastically unEnglish, you'll know for sure that you must do something (like stripping off the "repellent" last consonant) to it to get its real form. > la .edn,bryj and la mantcestyj and la djenifyj Hm. It seems to me that it is better to use {r} here. Many speakers pronounce it to some degree anyway. {la mantcestr.}, {la djenifr.}... > and la xenrij This is an interesting one. What if we convert it to {la xenrix.}? What is the German form of the name? Heinrich. There you go. Ivan