Date:         Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:25:53 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Poesy (WAS Re: Online learning)
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <906481656.2128075.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 1340
Lines: 27


>It's always a problem finding a comprise between metricality
>and grammaticality.&nbsp; Apart from the last line, it should all fit rou=
>ghly
>into tetrameter or trimeter (second verse), but sometimes you have to "sc=
>runch"
>some of the cmavo.&nbsp; Fine in English, but I'm not sure if Lojban is
>supposed to be syllable-timed or stress-timed.&nbsp; If the atter is the
>case, this obviously wouldn't work.

There has been no ruling made on stress vs. syllable timing.  I am sure that
most English native speakers pronounce Lojban stress-timed to match their
native speech pattern.  I would like to hear how Lojban sounds spoken with a
proper syllble timing - but am not sure which I would favor.  Syllable-timing
has an atraction of "exoticness", but I am not sure that is a trait we should
value or shun in promoting Lojban.  Besides, to much ot he world, there is
nothing exotic about syllable timing.  But I can't pretned to know enough to
make a dispassionate judegment.

lojbab