From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Mon Mar 16 10:11:59 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 16 Mar 92 10:11 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA07994; Mon, 16 Mar 92 10:08:54 EST Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA16015; Mon, 16 Mar 92 09:45:48 -0500 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA14790; Mon, 16 Mar 92 09:07:31 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA02785; Mon, 16 Mar 92 09:03:27 EST Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA02505; Mon, 16 Mar 92 08:34:15 -0500 Message-Id: <9203161334.AA02505@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2867; Mon, 16 Mar 92 08:32:11 EST Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 PTF011) id 3664; Mon, 16 Mar 92 08:31:46 EST Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 13:26:49 +0000 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Subject: Re: Place names To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sat, 14 Mar 92 01:10:35 GMT.) <56935.9203140117@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> Status: RO Ivan: > > Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 19:31:37 +0000 > > From: And Rosta > > > > I reckon the Lojbanized names should (sometimes) use original spelling, > > where original spelling is in roman alphabet. > > This implies different treatment of names coming from languages using > Roman script and names coming from languages using some other script > or having no writing system. I can't accept the idea that the way > Lojban sounds is to be allowed to depend on the fact that we use a > Roman-based script for it, which I view as a totally arbitrary choice. > I want Lojban to make just as much sense if it is transcribed into > another (say, Cyrillic-based) script. Perhaps, then, there should be a conventional cyrillic transliteration of lojban, & so on for other alphabets. It cannot be easy to view the choice of romic script as a totally arbitrary choice. Principled reasons for the choice are easy to imagine to have applied. > > After all, /lndn/ distorts both > > spelling and pronuciation, whereas /london/ distorts only pronunciation. > > Equally, the Spanish "z" and pre-front "c" (an interdental fricative) > and the Swedish "y" (a front rounded vowel) would have be lojbanised > as {z}, {c} and {y} respectively, so that spelling would be preserved. > Pronounciation would have to be distorted anyway, as the corresponding > sounds don't exist in Lojban. So you agree with me? --- And