From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 11 15:05:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 11 Aug 2001 22:05:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 92235 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2001 22:05:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Aug 2001 22:05:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Aug 2001 22:05:46 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.98]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010811220543.WHTJ29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:05:43 +0100 To: Subject: [fairly trivial message] RE: [lojban] Tengwar Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:04:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C122BA.05E5EB20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9428 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C122BA.05E5EB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nick: > Just learnt elron's mapping of Lojban to Tengwar. It is cool. But --- Not Elrond? Elron created Scientology. > (In this, I run counter to And's amity for 'h'. I dunno. Given that the optimal (because most contrastive) pronunciation of /'/ is [T] (th), doesn't seem that great. I'd prefer to shed the apostrophe thus: => , => , => . > Then again, I doubt And thinks that highly of Tengwar. :-) Why not? I fell in love with them in early youth, still relish their systematicity and especially the way they are an idealization of roman miniscules. (BTW, I find that on my screen I can type in Tengwar:if I change to HTML encoding (a practise which I would ordinarily find odious -- HTML encoding, I mean; not typing in tengwar): [on my screen this line is written in a tengwar font] (I don't know how come.) > 3. Ergo, since we have an available vowel carrier that doesn't actually > fit Lojban, and a treatment of apostrophe that I think overkill, why don't > we kill two birds with one rune, and make the long vowel carrier into the > apostrophe? That way you'd get {oi} as "0o0i", and {o'i} as "0o_i". More > importantly, {uu} as "0u0u", and {u'u} as "0u_u" --- not "_u", which looks > nothing like "0u0u". You'd get a much less prolix Tengwar, and I think > it'd be easier to read. That sounds good. I admit I never studied the proposal for lojban in tengwar. --And. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C122BA.05E5EB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nick:
> Just learnt elron's mapping of Lojban to Te= ngwar.=20 It is cool. But ---

Not Elrond? Elron created Scientology.

&g= t;=20 (In this, I run counter to And's amity for 'h'.

I dunno. Given that = the=20 optimal (because most contrastive) pronunciation
of /'/ is [T] (th),=20 <h> doesn't seem that great. I'd prefer to shed
the apostrophe thu= s:=20 <o'e> =3D> <oe>, <o'i> =3D> <oi>, <oi> = =3D>=20 <oy>.

> Then again, I doubt And thinks that highly of Tengw= ar.=20 :-)

Why not? I fell in love with them in early youth, still relish=20 their
systematicity and especially the way they are an idealization=20 of
roman miniscules.

(BTW, I find that on my screen I can type in= =20 Tengwar:if I change to HTML encoding (a practise whic= h I=20 would ordinarily find odious -- HTML encoding, I mean; not typing in=20 tengwar):

[on my screen this line is w= ritten=20 in a tengwar font]
(I don't kn= ow how=20 come.)


> 3. Ergo, since we have an available vowel carrie= r that=20 doesn't actually
> fit Lojban, and a treatment of apostrophe that I t= hink=20 overkill, why don't
> we kill two birds with one rune, and make the l= ong=20 vowel carrier into the
> apostrophe? That way you'd get {oi} as "0o0i= ",=20 and {o'i} as "0o_i". More
> importantly, {uu} as "0u0u", and {u'u} as= =20 "0u_u" --- not "_u", which looks
> nothing like "0u0u". You'd get a m= uch=20 less prolix Tengwar, and I think
> it'd be easier to read.

That sounds good. I admit I = never=20 studied the proposal for lojban in tengwar.

--And.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C122BA.05E5EB20--