From sentto-44114-2876-959530424-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun May 28 16:12:15 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 26089 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 16:12:14 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 28 May 2000 16:12:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 20640 invoked by uid 40001); 28 May 2000 16:13:45 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 20637 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 16:13:45 -0000 Received: from mk.egroups.com (207.138.41.165) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 28 May 2000 16:13:45 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2876-959530424-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2000 16:13:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 15570 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 16:13:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 May 2000 16:13:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO qg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 May 2000 16:13:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 31096 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 16:13:42 -0000 Received: from n7.onelist.org (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by iqg.egroups.com with SMTP; 28 May 2000 16:13:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.100] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2000 16:13:41 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Message-ID: <8grgjg+7dt1@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000528052518.00b19c00@127.0.0.1> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._T=FCting?=" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 16:13:36 -0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: coi rodo - mi'e .aulun. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > The short form of what I can eventually put up is that /e/ generally mapped=20 > to schwa which by the pattern of other languages we mapped to Lojban a - we=20 > should have instead mapped it back to Lojban e for Chinese. Mapping it to schwa wouldn't have been too bad an idea: pinyin "le" (W.-G. "lo") is somewhat between lb "luy" and "ly" - the latter perhaps being bit closer (e.g. emperor "Yung-lo" py:=20 "yong3 le4" =A5=C3=BC=D6 i.e. "eternal joy") pinyin "luo" (W.-G. "lo") is between lb "luo" and "lo" - closer to the first, about like English: "lwo (e.g. Luoma =C3=B9=B0=A8 "Rome") pinyin "he" (W.-G. "ho") is a bit different, about lb "xy" (e.g. py "he2" =AAe "river(s)" - north of the Huai). For building gismu, there are far too many schwa in Chinese words. > I have several special cases including /iu/ and /iou/ mapping to Lojban iyu, /iong/ to=20 > Lojban un(g) lb "iyu" is not bad for py "iu" because words like "liu" (e.g. py: "liu4" =A4=BB "six") are a bit like "liou/leou". pinyin "-ui" (e.g. kui, gui, sui etc.) would go well by lb "-uyi" because a bit like "-uei" (hence W.-G.: kuei =B6Q "precious/ honourable). py "-iong/yong" should be lb "iun." pinyin "shun" (English pron. rather "shwun" or even "shwuen) maybe could be written in lb by "cuyn". This is all pretty complicated/sophisticated thinking of French "le" or German/Hungarian/Turkish umlauts (should transcribe my=20 second name with "umlaut" u or i??? Easter European speakers tend to say "i" (except the Russians pronouncing, and even writing=20 "iu" instead (e.g. their German-Russian word "bjustgalter", German: "B=9Fstenhalter" engl. "bra(ssiere)") > We used the rules we inherited from JCB, the inventor of the=20 > language, and those rules by and large treated all languages equally. This=20 > was not wise for Chinese for one reason (the bad sound mappings) and Arabic=20 > for a different reason (in Arabic, the vowels have little sound/meaning=20 > significance, while the consonants and their order are vital).=20 Russian=20 > suffered from its tendency towards long words, even after we dropped=20 > declension endings. As a result, Hindi, English, and Spanish are somewhat=20 > more effectively represented (unfortunately our Hindi scholarship was=20 > probably the weakest of our 6 languages though). =20 Also, Chinese (Mandarin) phonologically is pretty poor to get good material from (Hungarian would have been fine with lots of=20 short and distinct vocabulary - although a 'small' language - it is really great! :( Also in a lojban sense. I should have to stick to learning some more Lojban now, instead of always hanging around writing long postings ;)) Thanks for your instructions c'o mi'e .aulun. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Old school buds here: http://click.egroups.com/1/4057/3/_/17627/_/959530416/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com