From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 05 07:48:26 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 19340 invoked from network); 5 May 2004 14:48:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2004 14:48:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2004 14:48:25 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BLNEs-0005hH-JL for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 05 May 2004 07:19:10 -0700 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BLNEB-0005ga-2p; Wed, 05 May 2004 07:18:27 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 May 2004 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.167.169.36] (helo=ytterbium.corpex.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BLNE0-0005ft-Rd for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 07:18:17 -0700 Received: from zefram by ytterbium.corpex.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BLNDz-0002z7-00 for ; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:18:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20040505135550.62211.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-Id: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:18:15 +0000 X-archive-position: 7658 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: zefram@fysh.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Zefram From: Zefram Reply-To: zefram@fysh.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Why capital letters standing in for letterals is a *bad* idea. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22126 Jorge wrote: >> mi DJica le nu Cilre la loJban. > >How can you tell it's Cilre and not ciLre, for example? Why >loJban and not Lojban? I can happily pronounce "lojban" as "LO,jban". Even with my usual pronunciation of "LOJ,ban", it sounds to me as though the stress is almost entirely within the "lo". So "loJban" looks quite misleading, not to mention risking interpretation as "lo,JBAN". Since it's the syllable that's stressed, the stress mark should unambiguously mark the syllable. This means either the syllable must be explicitly delimited or the mark should be on something that is unambiguously in the right syllable, i.e., the vowel (or diphthong or syllabic consonant). The two versions of capitalisation that we use are just implementing these two strategies. Robin's "pa" suggestion, which I think looks pretty good, is another case of explicitly delimiting the syllable. Has anyone considered, as a possible principle, that stress marking should not require (or otherwise interact with) syllabification marking? Is it not the Lojbanic way that the two should be independent? This suggests that the vowel only should be marked. -zefram