From sentto-44114-2891-959727297-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Tue May 30 22:53:21 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 29519 invoked from network); 30 May 2000 22:53:19 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 30 May 2000 22:53:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 25372 invoked by uid 40001); 30 May 2000 22:55:00 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 25368 invoked from network); 30 May 2000 22:55:00 -0000 Received: from hk.egroups.com (208.50.144.91) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 30 May 2000 22:55:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2891-959727297-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 May 2000 22:54:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 5122 invoked from network); 30 May 2000 22:54:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 May 2000 22:54:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO firat.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr) (139.179.10.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 May 2000 22:54:17 -0000 Received: from bilkent.edu.tr (slip5.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.70.15]) by firat.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4UMucb19531 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:56:38 +0300 (EET DST) Sender: robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR Message-ID: <39344693.6DC772E4@bilkent.edu.tr> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14-15mdk i686) X-Accept-Language: en To: lojban@egroups.com References: From: Robin 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: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:54:11 +0300 Subject: Re: [lojban] Chinese names Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit pycyn@aol.com wrote: > another set of voiceless, strong, and aspirated. In Chinese, the voiced > voiceless contrast drops out (as in French, the aspirated/un- does, pretty > much), though much of the patterning is otherwise the same. So the > temptation -- and the more recent English -- at least -- scholarly usage has > been to use English voiced for Chinese unaspirated with some minor exceptions > . The older style system --even with all its diacritics(which no one ever > uses all of) -- is just obscureon some issues. For example of relevance, is > the "Ch" of "Chuangtzu" the affricate lb/dj/ or the fricative /j/? > The new system seems to say the latter (and that "ts" is just /z/), but the > latter is generally said to be wrong and so the former may be also. > And many of thes issues get changed before "i", which is much li ke lb/y/but > is very different after these fric/affric sounds (and so they are often > spelled differently then). Something surely can be worked out within lb > phonology. A lot depends on regional accents. Going on rather weak memory, my Chinese teacher, who was from the North (and therefore had a standard accent apart from the "r" attatched to every vowel!) pronounced "zh" pretty close to Lojban "j" except further back, and tended to emphasise the final "i", so "Zhuangzi" would be "juangzy" in Lojban (add the consonant of your choice). .u'i however, given that BBC newsreaders still haven't managed to pronounce "Beijing" rometely correctly, I don't think it's a major issue. co'o mi'e robin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers. http://click.egroups.com/1/4633/3/_/17627/_/959727294/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com