Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id BAA25501 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 01:33:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199511140633.BAA25501@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 258D3979 ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 2:27:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 00:51:37 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: Pitch Accent X-To: cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 14 01:33:55 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU >Nick Nicholas has proposed to me that high pitch (a la Japanese or >Serbo-Croatian) should be tolerated in Lojban as an alternative to primary >stress. Nora points out that there's no a priori reason why it should be >high rather than low pitch that means "accented". Comments? I still would like to hear from someone familiar with stress-timed vs, syllble-timed languages as to the pro and con of each kind of timingh for Lojban. It probably won't be part of the prescription in any case, but anything that idnetifies particular methods of indicating stress might constrain what type of timing becomes dominant in fluent Lojban. So far as I know, all of the most fluent Lojbanists are from stress-timed languages. lojbab