Received: from access3.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA14400 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 4 Aug 1994 01:56:38 -0400 Received: by access3.digex.net id AA22678 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Thu, 4 Aug 1994 01:56:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 01:56:37 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199408040556.AA22678@access3.digex.net> To: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Subject: response to John Cowan on names Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Aug 4 01:56:41 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab >> I don't intend to require every Lojbanist to become a master of the world's >> phonologies, past and present. So when in doubt relying on spelling is not >> a bad idea for dealing with a name you don't know. And recognizing that the >> average Lojbanist will do that, the knowledgeable Lojbanist who is devising >> a Lojban name based on multiple 'legitimate' pronunciations, probably should >> choose the one that will match most closely with what the unknowledgeable >> Lojbanist will choose - after all, they might end up talking to each other %^) > >This is related to And's point. A name means what the speaker wants it >to mean.But equally, as Mark says, you can't just make these things up >and be understood. Several people assumed that Pierre, N.D. was >"pi,er.", but it's "pir." Yes, but if you DID say "pi,er", even a native would probably understand, whereas using the "correct" form might actual *reduce* understand if talking to someone who doesn't know the idiosyncracies of local pronunciation. In written Lojban, matching a pronuciation that has no resemblence to spelling will probably mean that many won't figure it out. So some alternative that is spelling-cogniscent is worth considering as an alternative 'less-preferred' Lojbanization. And if I as a Lojbanist, am using a name on the fly, I will wing it as best I can, and I'm SURE I won't remember that variation on Pierre, SD. It is worth putting in the dictionary as a "correct" form, but I daresay that if anyone writes in Lojban text and mentions Pierre SD, and does NOT check the dictionary, the result will likely be the average American's interpretation of this as a first name. We gotta be realistic in doing this John. la pir. is fine for prescription, but let us not fool ourselves into thing that a dictionary will suffice as a prescriptive standard once usage starts building. lojbab