From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Thu Jul 28 08:53:41 1994 Message-Id: <199407281253.AA01205@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Thu Jul 28 08:53:41 1994 Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS Sender: Lojban list From: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: Lojbanized German place names X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: <199407272145.25825@krang.vis.mu.OZ.AU> from "ucleaar" at Jul 27, 94 10:40:28 pm Status: RO Hu'tegh! nuq ja' ucleaar jay'? =Could you explain the argument that roundedness does not count? =Couldn't the Lojban i/u & e/o distinction be one of roundedness =rather than backness? Oh, I dunno, And... I have these horror visions of Lojbanists producing back unrounded vowels (which sound hideous enough in British and American English --- we Ozzies have the sense to pronounce /u/ in cup as a short version of /a/ in carp --- both as low centrals, rather than unrounded back vowels, mid-open and open resp. One more reason why this is God's own country! zo'osai) =More generally, I wd favour a Lojbanization of names that respects =*spelling* over pronunciation. Or at least spelling shd be given =equal weight. A view the linguistic orthodoxy would scoff at, a view that goes against our notions of kulnu nutli and phonetic transcription... but if I'm confronted with forms like xamburk., I'd tend to agree with And on this one... Not that I can see it happening --- it's much more difficult to decide on a consistent compromise between pronunciation and spelling, than to just go with the pronunciation. -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Nick Nicholas. Linguistics, University of Melbourne. nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au nsn@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au nick_nicholas@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au AND MOVING SOON TO: nnich@speech.language.unimelb.edu.au