Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12323 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2000 06:55:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Aug 2000 06:55:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO argo.bas.bg) (195.96.224.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2000 06:55:27 -0000 Received: from banmatpc.math.bas.bg (root@banmatpc.math.bas.bg [195.96.243.2]) by argo.bas.bg (8.11.0/8.11.0/Debian 8.11.0-1) with ESMTP id e7S6t2w24099 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:55:03 +0300 Received: from iad.math.bas.bg (iad.math.bas.bg [195.96.243.88]) by banmatpc.math.bas.bg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA15798 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:54:52 +0300 Message-ID: <39AA0D04.1AC5@math.bas.bg> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:56:05 +0300 Reply-To: iad@math.bas.bg Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: World-historical and religious figures in Lojban References: <8obdcm+thm2@eGroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Ivan A Derzhanski X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4105 Content-Length: 2236 Lines: 54 Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting) wrote: > --- In lojban@egroups.com, Ivan A Derzhanski wrote: > > Then I conclude that {dz}, {dj}, {ts}, {tc} are unsuitable for > > representing the affricates of other languages. > > In my opinion, {kunfu'ydz.} or even {kunfu'yz.} would be hardly > acceptable - not for the Lojban morphology, but the sound > expressed by this form far far off from original pronunciation. Thing is, Lojban phonology (incl. phonotactics) being what it is (nothing like the phonology of its Source Language Number One), one can't really get very close to the original pronunciation. > I won't believe that lojban really restricts its users to names > like these (on the other hand allowing lujvo with consonant > clusters that are - even for my German tongue! - near > to unpronouncable). Your German tongue would be accustomed to few initial clusters, but many final ones; Lojban's preferences (at least for its own words, gismu & lujvo) are of the opposite (Slavic) type. Anyway, it is perfectly normal for a language to demand that all names uttered in its context conform to its phonology ... > This would be pretty strange for a conlang first of all meant > for and dedicated to people! ... for a natural language, anyway; in Lojban I prefer to keep names as they are, marking them as foreign-language quotations. > > Fricatives do tend to become affricates after sonorant > > consonants (nasals and liquids). Happens sporadically > > in German, but is a rule in Yiddish (De _unser_ --> Yd > > _undzer_ `our', De _falsch_ --> Yd _falch_ `false'); > > also in Mordvin and other languages. > > That's interesting, yet lojban shouldn't care too much ;) about that. Such a selectively considerate attitude is not uncommon in conlangs. Schleyer minimised the frequency of _r_ in Volapük so as to make it easier to pronounce for Chinese speakers. Then he decided that `we' would be _obs_. > From the example of Austrian pronunciation of the word > _Tunnel_ (Germ.: about /tun,l/ Austrian: almost /tun,dl/) one > perhaps might see that tendency also between nasals and liquids. Yes, there too; cf. Russian substandard _ndrav_ for standard _nrav_ `temper, character, disposition'. --Ivan