Message-Id: <199509142241.SAA24904@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 14 Sep 1995 22:03:55 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      lojban recordings
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Concering recordings of spoken Lojban:

First, can anyone answer this query I received in private email:
> Do you know of any "official" tapes I could get a hold of?  Being at
> the raw beginner stage continuous speech would be beyond me, but word
> pronunciation would be very helpful.
> Not being a linguist, much of the discussion in the group is beyond
> me, but I'm still hanging on in there.  Any help you can offer is
> most welcome.

Maybe there are cassettes available? Or sound recordings available
on WWW?

Jorge:
> Is Nick emailable these days?

Mail him in Melbourne & he'll get it when he establishes access
from Greece.

> That sounds like the conversations that Chris, Nora, Lojbab and I had
> during Logfest. We were able to converse almost without switching to
> English, but with much hesitation and effort.

Did they get recorded?

> Something that I noticed that lojbab and I do different is in the
> stress of strings of cmavo. For example, in saying {le nu}, lojbab
> seemed to stress {le}, and I always stress {nu}. I don't remember
> noticing what Chris did, so he might do the same I do. Or in {remei},
> lojbab stresses {re} and I stress {mei}. On the other hand, we
> probably both stress {re} in {re le broda}. Can you tell how Nick et
> al handle this from the tapes?

I haven't checked. You ask about sequences of monosyllabic cmavo, &
my intuition is that the stress on these would be affected by the
stress on adjacent syllables, e.g. LE nu BROda, versus le NU selBROda.
I did notice (with approval) that cmavo sequences that are often
written together without a space are not stressed as if they were a
single word; e.g. DAhiNAI, not daHInai.

Re this point, Goran says:
> mi FADni CUSku lu REmei LI'u .eKU'i lu so'Imei LI'u .Abo lu SO'imei LI'u
[{bacru} rather than {cusku}?]
- I'd have thought {so'Imei} is wrong. But {so'IRmei} would be
correct.

I didn't get the impression that the speakers were that bothered about
pauses or glottal stops or whatever. And Nick hesitates with .aa
rather than with .yy.

> > It also struck me that there's a need for **echo** wh-questions, for
> > when one can't hear a word or doesn't know it. {kie} is too unspecific
> > and {ma} & co. do a different job. So, if anyone's listening, how
> > about a cmavo like {kau} that marks a {ma}-word as an echo question?
> Well, there's {ke'o}, but that's a COI:
> -- mi klama le zarci
> -- i ke'o do'u do klama ma?
> Or how about {maki'a}?
> -- i do klama maki'a?

Both excellent suggestions.

On the same topic, what would you use for a backchannel, like "right,
yeah, mhm" etc.? (I.e. stuff the addressee says while the speaker's
talking.) Nothing in COI seems an obvious choice. {je'e} seems
the best, but my cmaste says it has a specialized usage of
acknowledgement, which is different from backchanneling.

Goran:
> .i la nitCION. cu JU'o NA nalBIRti DENpa CASnu .i PE'i KO'a goi NY.
> na DJUno leDU'u MA SMUni zo DENpa vau ZO'o

True relative to other people, but not true relative to Nick speaking
English!

> .i ZU'unai mi NITcu LEnu tceJUNdi KO'a MU'i LEnu DJIca co JIMpe
> KO'a .iKU'i CUMki fa RI

mi pu jimpe pinonopa lei se bacru i kui mi na djuno soe lojbo valsi
ije mi soe lojbo valsi na ku djuno

> .i LA'ezo XY. .e LA'ezo .Ybu .e LA'elu DENpabu LI'u .Enai lo DRAta
> NA'e CMIma LE'i BANgu be MI SANce

The set of languages spoken by you emit the sounds [x], [@] and [?]
but not the other nonmembers??? KIe.

---
And