Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qUnjC-000023C; Mon, 1 Aug 94 06:07 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3822; Mon, 01 Aug 94 06:06:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3819; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 06:06:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0807; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 05:05:49 +0200 Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 23:06:48 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Lojbanized German place names X-To: rauch@CS.YALE.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 753 Lines: 14 I would prefer that Lojbanization avoid 'y'/schwa if "it can go either way", and respect spelling. For one thing, schwa is forbidden in fu'ivla, and it is natural whether And Rosta's position is adopted or not, to want to sometimes turn a Lojbanized name into a fu'ivla, and you don;t want the differeing morphology rules to cause too much havoc. But in any case, respecting spelling when there is doubt seems to be the obvious choice, since it enhances the visual reinforcement/recognition that will make a particular Lojbanization "catch on" in case there is dispute among the dialectal factions. (It also means us numbskulls who don't know the languages in question very well will be less often in error when we invent names off-the-cuff. lojbab