Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Wed, 12 Feb 92 15:14 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA01824; Wed, 12 Feb 92 15:08:59 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA13715; Wed, 12 Feb 92 14:40:47 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA22546; Wed, 12 Feb 92 14:40:27 EST Message-Id: <9202121940.AA22546@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 4871; Wed, 12 Feb 92 14:39:12 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 5630; Wed, 12 Feb 92 14:38:09 EST Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1992 12:43:03 EST Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Unofficial alphabet lists for Lojban/Latin/English, Greek, X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: <9202112350.AA25503@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Feb 11, 92 6:46 pm Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 12 15:14:48 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN la mark. clsn. cusku di'e: > I dunno. Some of those seem kind of arbitrary. I guess they have to be. > I suppose there'd be no ambiguity between lojban '=y'ybu and English/Latin > h=y'ybu? Lojban ' = y'y. English h = y'y.bu. I'm not trying to deal with English (or any other language) punctuation marks here: there is a separate lerfu subsystem for dealing with them. > Why not > {.uybu} for "w"? Hmm, sounds reasonable. Comments, anyone? > Will there be some conflict with Cyrillic {.iebu} for "ye" or {.iobu} for > "yo"? I mean, we use {.uibu} or {zo'obu} for smileyface, maybe {.iobu} > would be taken as some symbol of agreement. No problem. After a "ru'o", which establishes Cyrillic mode, all lerfu are taken to have their Cyrillic interpretations, so "ty." is not "t" but "teh". > Is {cybubu} really even a > valid lerfu? Yes. "bububububu..." sequences are legal, if ugly. > BTW, don't all the "xybu" lerfu really need to be "xy.bu", to > avoid getting taken for consonant cluters or something? Especially when in > mid-sentence. Yes. This list has been around a while. > For the Hebrew Alphabet, do you want separate names for the hard and soft > forms of the letters that have hard and soft forms (presence/lack of weak > dagesh)? Like bet/vet, kaf/chaf. Not all these differences are observed > by every dialect, but some are near-universal (like kaf/chaf). Shin and > Sin really don't alternate, even though they differ only in a dot. They > probably deserve separate lerfu, though I'm not an authority on their > history. I don't know. Originally "i"/"j" and "u"/"v"/"w" were not distinct letters; now they are. The 1976 Israel Standards Institute computer charset separates bet/vet, kaf/khaf, peh/feh, sin/shin. This is probably reasonable. > Modern Hebrew pronounces tzadi as {ts}, Esp "c". Maybe {tsybu} > would be clearer? Is that a legitimate lerfu? Alas, no. "tsybu" is not a lerfu because "tsy" is not a word. Only by, cy, dy, ... are allowed to end in "y". > On Zipfean grounds, I > should point out that tof is much more common than tet, and thus deserves > the shorter lerfu. Excellent! This is the kind of feedback I need. > Similarly, tzadi has it all over samekh, and I think > even Sin is more common. Samekh is pretty rare. So propose a new version, and we'll be happy to accept it. > Will you want final > forms? The forms are considered more distinct than, say, Arabics 3 or 4 > forms per letter depending on where in the word it is. On admittedly rare > occasion, it becomes important whether it's final (some numerologists > assign different values to the final letters). Tentatively, no. This decision is subject to change. > The vowel system in Hebrew > is fairly complex. There are even two vowels which are written *exactly* > the same, but technically are distinct, and some (like me) even pronounce > them differently. What about the "hyphenated" vowels? I'll discuss this > with you offline. Okay. The character set mentioned above has the following vowels, so they at least should be included: hireq, sereh, segol, qubbus, qamas, pathah, shewa, hataph pathah, hataph segol, hataph qamas, holem, shureq. Needless to say, these are just random character strings to me. Can you map them into the Lojban vowel set in any reasonable fashion? > I can swing Devanagari also, though only the Sanskrit letters, not those > used only in later Hindi. Go for it! -- cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban