From araizen@newmail.net Wed Sep 29 21:30:33 1999 X-Digest-Num: 249 Message-ID: <44114.249.1369.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:30:33 +0200 From: "Adam Raizen" Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu) X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1369 la mark cusku di'e > From: "Mark E. Shoulson" > > >From: "Adam Raizen" > >Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:53:20 +0200 > > > >From: "Adam Raizen" > > > >I would suggest "tri'iki". I realize that it doesn't look much like most > >languages pronunciation or spelling of Turkey, but since it's of the > >form CCVVCV, and so conforms to the rafsi fu'ivla proposal in > >section 16 of chapter 4 of the href grammar, I think it works best. > > FWIW, I'm not at all sanguine about Stage 4 fu'ivla pretty much ever, at > this point in the language (and possibly ever, period). Lojban's tricky > enough with lujvo and rafsi and contextually-defined cmene; I'd rather not > add fu'ivla (which have place structures and all) to the mix without at > least flagging them with a classifier rafsi. So to me, {gugdrturki,e} or > {kulnrturki,e} is just fine, as appropriate (or {jectrturki,e}, etc). If > you don't like the comma, fine, use the diphthong, whatever. If you need > lujvo from those (which is stretching it; tanru should do in most cases) > there's always {zei}. In fact, a fair amount of the time you can even make > do with just the cmene and {zei}. So to me, even a correct and well-chosen > Stage 4 fu'ivla is still not something I'd want to see. > Maybe the average stage 4 fu'ivla isn't right for this stage of the language, but I think that at least cultural fu'ivla could be added as stage 4 fu'ivla, especially since there's a mechanism defined for doing so. The place structure isn't a problem; for all such words it's "x1 pertains to the culture in aspect x2." > >Using "i'i" as the two consonants may not be as recognizable at > >first glance as "u'u", but if the sound in Turkish is the same as > >French u (IPA [y]), it should definitely be i, since [y] is a valid > >allophone for the letter i. This may not look exactly like most other > >languages, but this often happens when learning another language. > > Still, even Turks are used to seeing "Turkey" (or "Turk*") in just about > every other Latin-alphabet orthography. That can't be a coincidence; /y/ > is close to /i/ in other languages as well. No, it's not a coincidence; they all copied the spelling and not the pronunciation. It's up to Lojban to set the world straight zo'o. > Between that and the > metathesis (ok, is the accent on the second of third syllable in that > word??) of the /r/, the word is pretty hard to recognize. Particularly > dangerous in a word not canonized in "official" lists. > Whenever you have a very rigid pattern like CCVVCV some words are going to need to be forced a bit. This happened with the gismu culture words too sometimes. How recognizable is "kisto" at first glance? Anyway, I don't think that we should let what "official" lists say hold us up, otherwise we'd never get any new words. Maybe if you're using a word like "tri'iki" which is likely not to be recognized it should be explained at first, but if everyone's worried about whether it's "official," it will never be used. > >The last letter could be either "i" or "e"; I chose "i" because then it > >matches the other vowels and creates a sort of a vowel harmony > >(though not in the Turkish sense, I realize). In any event, it doesn't > >really matter since rafsi fu'ivla aren't supposed to differ only in the > >last letter. > > Fair enough, but note that {o} is the traditional ending for cultural > brivla in Lojban. > Actually I think that -o is the ending for the gismu which weren't made by the algorithm. > ~mark Adam Raizen araizen@newmail.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." --George Washington