Message-Id: <m0qTmip-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 1994 03:49:17 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Lojbanized German place names
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2699
Lines: 52

NN> =Could you explain the argument that roundedness does not count?
NN> =Couldn't the Lojban i/u & e/o distinction be one of roundedness
NN> =rather than backness?
NN>
NN> Oh, I dunno, And... I have these horror visions of Lojbanists producing
NN> back unrounded vowels (which sound hideous enough in British and American
NN> English --- we Ozzies have the sense to pronounce /u/ in cup as a short
NN> version of /a/ in carp --- both as low centrals, rather than unrounded
NN> back vowels, mid-open and open resp. One more reason why this is God's own
NN> country!
NN>
NN> zo'osai)

Well, this is one reason I try to make my "y" somewhat more back than a
simple schwa, but still unrounded.  It makes it more distinct from 'a'
without too much risk of being taken for 'o' or 'u'.

NN> =*spelling* over pronunciation. Or at least spelling shd be given
NN> =equal weight.
NN>
NN> A view the linguistic orthodoxy would scoff at, a view that goes against
NN> our notions of kulnu nutli and phonetic transcription... but if I'm
NN> confronted with forms like xamburk., I'd tend to agree with And on this
NN> one... Not that I can see it happening --- it's much more difficult to
NN> decide on a consistent compromise between pronunciation and spelling, than
NN> to just go with the pronunciation.

I think it is possible to make one compromise:  use the consonantal sounds
of the original pronunciation, but use the vowels of spelling iff the result
is not likely to be offensive to the ear.  This based on the apparent
linguistic trend in borrowing to more or less do just that - we seem to
preserve the consonants of borrowed words much more accurately than the
vowels, because we are often wont to TRY to borrow based on spelling, but
still pronounce the words the way we read them.

This compromise might eliminate some of the excess of 'y's in Lojbanizing
British names (though we still have to deal with dropped 'r's, especially
syllabic ones).

I also suspect that the vowel differences are the most likely errors to
be made when working from an English transcription of a non-Roman alphabet
name, and that such errors might actually enhance recognition.  I still
am recalling what using the 'official' definitions of Pinyin pronunciation
did to Chinese recognition - almost all 'o's disappeared from the Lojbanizations
because they Chinese 'o' is listed as seldom sounding like a Lojban 'o'

The result was a lot of schwas.  This also happened to Russian and English,
which destressed a lot of vowels into schwa and hence into Lojban 'a' when
retaining the vowel of spelling would have been more true to the linguistic
history of the language and the morphology internal to the language.

lojbab