From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Sun Mar 15 06:40:54 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Sun, 15 Mar 92 06:40 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA23946; Sun, 15 Mar 92 06:11:57 EST Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA03810; Sun, 15 Mar 92 05:40:51 -0500 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA17402; Sun, 15 Mar 92 04:55:31 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA20838; Sun, 15 Mar 92 04:22:14 EST Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA24635; Sun, 15 Mar 92 03:15:39 -0500 Message-Id: <9203150815.AA24635@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9634; Sun, 15 Mar 92 03:14:46 EST Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 PTF011) id 3636; Sun, 15 Mar 92 03:14:32 EST Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 18:11:48 +1000 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!nsn Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!nsn Subject: Re: Lojban Names. X-To: Ivan A Derzhanski , lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 14 Mar 92 09:20:08 GMT." <9203141433.AA08937@relay1.UU.NET> Status: RO Quoth Ivan. >how about this: > {la'o .ing. New York .ing. goi la badyplis.} > {la'o .ing. Margaret Thatcher .ing. goi la tirnim.} Hehe. In fact, there is nothing essentially wrong about this. Whether this will become standard naming procedure is not for me to judge... >and then, of course, you may assign a KOhA, which means end of trouble. In fact, Lojbab's note on the introduction of a rafsi for {fo'a} (fo'a goi la suomis. i le fo'arselsanga - A finnish song) strongly pushes towards such a treatment. >If you're looking for people who have never heard of latitude and >longitude, New York might be a good place to go... Without wishing to enter into what might just develop into a John vs. Ivan situation: touch'e, messir! :) Nick, who went with "o = e and "u = i because of Greek transliteration. Hm. "o = e, "u = i? Though the form {tirki,e} sits very uncomfortably with this Greek, I could live with it. On the other hand, I could also live with {osteraix}. Yes, ultimately this *is* all very silly, so if someone else wants to decide a standard lojbanising phoneticisation, let them. Snoperias. Now *that*'s funny. OK then. The point of the standardised Lojbanisations (which, of course, noone is obligated to use) is to be: Consistent with orthodox Lojban phonology & morphology (no sg medials) Not glico Preferably related to the "native" form, preferably in a consistent manner (for example, I'm assuming, by the place structure of {natmi} and {gugde}, that the name of the nation, rather than the name of the nation-member, is to be used (frans, not franSEZ. rosi,a, not ruskii. [the cultural gismu are another matter]. madiaroSAG, not madiar.) Though taken to its natural conclusion this process is madness, and though our Lojban reader will require good examples of the use of {la'o}, nonetheless such standardised Lojbanisations are required, partly for the reasons Lojbab has argued, partly for normalisation. *If* this accepted, then one starts asking about the details. ESteraix or OSteraix? makedonia or makeDOni,a or makeDOni,ia (I read the phonology guide as saying that, between two vowels, , means a glide; that's why I omitted it. Still, I'm keeping my mouth shut until things seem clearer to me; right now they don't at all.