From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Dec 12 11:03:54 1995
Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@BGEARN.ACAD.BG>
Date: Tue Dec 12 11:03:54 1995
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@BGEARN.ACAD.BG>
Subject:      Re: 2Re: CPE: la DAOdeiJIN
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  Message of Sun, 10 Dec 1995 18:14:37 -0600 from 
              <hazel@TURING.CS.STEDWARDS.EDU>
Status: OR
Message-ID: <tgsODa7MreP.A.u0F.su0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

(Shouldn't that be {-djin}, btw, rather than {-jin}?  It's an affricate.)

On Sun, 10 Dec 1995 18:14:37 -0600 Steve Hazel said:
>i forgot that "ao" was an invalid diphthong
>i guess "da'os" or "dau" would be the proper lojban form of the name.

It's a single syllable in Chinese, so it should be one in Lojban also.
Thus {dau} rather than {da'o}.

(Add any consonant or consonant cluster to the end to make it a cmene
-- preferably something that doesn't occur in syllable-final position
in Chinese, so that it will be immediately identified as a cmenifier.
That means anything other than {-n} and {-ng}.  I suppose {-s} is OK;
I wonder, though, if the final could be chosen depending on the tone,
so that it won't be lost in the lojbanisation.)

Anyway, what is wrong with {la daj.}?  Aren't {CVC} rafsi a standard
source of cmene?

--Ivan