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 m0qVC5E-000023C; Tue, 2 Aug 94 08:08 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6581; Tue, 02 Aug 94 08:06:45 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6578; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:06:45 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3608; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 07:05:49 +0200 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 15:06:44 +1000 Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS Sender: Lojban list From: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Phonology and transliteration X-To: Lojban Mailing List To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 736 Lines: 13 Just one thing that seems to be forgotten in all the fuss about xamburk/ xamburg. There is a very good reason Hamburg is written as Hamburg. /hamburg/ is the phonologically underlying form (thus, /hamburger/, not /hamburker/). There's a lot to be said for going for the phonologically underlying form in my book. Of course, that kills off a lot of schwas in English name transliterations, but it may ultimately be more intuitive... -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 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