Message-Id: <9202072055.AA05484@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 1992 15:59:49 GMT
Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
Subject:      Re: states/provinces/counties
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id>; from "Edmund Grimley-Evans" at Feb 5, 92 6:59 pm
Status: RO

Edmund says:
>
> I shouldn't waste much time inventing Lojban-names for the British
> counties. Many of the English names are completely unknown even to the
> people who live in them! And many of them have no long tradition.

This is not true. The names are known to almost all who live in them;
and though some of the current counties have only existed for fifteen
years, in almost every case the name was in use for the region
beforehand - some (eg Cleveland and most of the Welsh counties) are very
old names.

> Very few British counties have their own names in Esperanto, and only
> one of them has a name in French. (I'm not going to tell you which,
> guess!)
The point is not whether the place has a name in lojban - they all do
potentionally, and actually as soon as somebody tries to refer to them -
but what the standard Lojban rendering of the non-lojban phonetics is to
be.

>
> It would be much more useful (at least in the case of Britain) merely to
> work with the names of the largest cities.

I agree that this will be useful too.