Return-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0st1cw-0000ZLC; Thu, 14 Sep 95 02:54 EET DST Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.12+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA13981 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 02:54:01 +0300 Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (MAILER@CUNYVMV2) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V5.0-3 #2494) id <01HV91GPLD740004RH@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> for veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 02:54:56 +0200 (EET) Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@CUNYVM) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7509; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 19:53:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 19:52:21 -0400 (EDT) From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: bridi conn & Nicholas tapes Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-id: <01HV91GPNP0Y0004RH@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3871 Lines: 85 And: > I know this must have been debated to death long ago, but why was it > not felt that there should be a way? Surely it can't be too difficult > syntactically to have an afterthought bridi connective. I'm gobsmacked > that there is no way. After all, logically all connectives are really > bridi connectives. Yes, and besides, as a practical matter, the need has come up more than once. I suppose it would require a new cmavo, because using {gi} probably would cause insurmountable parsing problems. If it doesn't, then {gi} would be ideal for the job: {ko'a broda i ko'e brode} would go to {le nu ko'a broda gi ko'e brode}. And the same thing with a connective: {ko'a broda ije ko'e brode} would go to {le nu ko'a broda gije ko'e brode}. > > > While listening to the Nicholas Tapes (just got to Goran singing the > > > Lojbo-Croat anthem amidst a drunken revel), > > Can I get a copy? I'll pay for shipping and handling. > > I have them only on loan, &, having myself been involved in research > projects involving recorded conversations, I know that the recordees > can sometimes be rather touchy about distribution. So I leave it to > Nick. Is Nick emailable these days? > It is fascinating hearing different spoken Lojban styles. Nik begins > every utterance with {i}, uses {si si si si} and then races ahead > a mile a minute while you're trying to remember what the fifth word > back was, does lujvo on the fly, and has a stumbling-conversational > fluency in Lojban roughly equivalent (but certainly not inferior) > to what I had in French after 5 hours a week for 5 years of high school > - that is, one can converse, but with great intellectual effort and > hesitation. 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. > Colin is not as fluent, but could understand Nick, which > tells you how brainy Colin must be. Ivan speaks faster than Nick, if > that is possible (but he only spoke a bit, and he may have been reading > aloud). Goran has the clearest diction (or at least his spoken Lojban > sounds like I'd imagined it would sound before I heard any). According to some, people from Goran's part of the world have the best Esperanto accents, and since Lojban and Esperanto have practically the same phonemes, it sounds reasonable that Goran would have a good Lojban pronounciation. Perhaps we should decree Goran's pronounciation to be the norm for Lojban :). > (When Nick > phoned me up when he arrived the first thing he said was {i vizykla} > and I thought he was speaking Klingon - the last syllable was [klah], > and I wasn't expecting {i}, and hands up everyone who doesn't know > the rafsi for {vi}. And I've already told you how with my English > ears I hear his voiceless stops as voiced.) > > I heard no complete intonation patterns over utterances much longer > than {na gohi} - there isn't that degree of fluency yet. 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? > 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? Jorge