Message-ID: <925d17560607091340r4ce6e7c9u5b9867fe22f73e6e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:40:33 -0300
In-Reply-To: <44B14F3B.4040308@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <44AF0325.2070709@gmail.com>	 <e6663d200607080717u46d366bt96994c2355815a91@mail.gmail.com>	 <44AFD504.5090902@gmail.com>	 <925d17560607080924y2ff442bcqa6bddada11785a33@mail.gmail.com>	 <44B064B6.2000102@gmail.com>	 <925d17560607090642j320d13dcj98b78b6bf9408b5a@mail.gmail.com>	 <44B14F3B.4040308@gmail.com>
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality
Content-Length: 2497
Lines: 56

On 7/9/06, Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To more directly answer your question:  Nothing is in place to prevent
> what you describe, but there are no guidelines.  IMHO, guidelines help;
> the rules already in place in Lojban are good, but can be improved, for
> specialist purposes.

If what you want are official guidelines about a phonetic alphabet, then
I can hardly see any more authoritative guidelines than those provided
by the International Phonetic Association. They will be orders of magnitude
better than the guidelines that a small group of people with a cursory and
amateurish knowledge of phonetics can give you. A phonetic alphabet
is by its very nature not associated with a particular language, so there
is not much point in associating one with Lojban.


> >> Your secondary thought (thank you for sticking with the issue to have
> >> such deeper thoughts) appears to be:  If it comes down to the point
> >> where there *is* a vote on one phonetic alphabet, your vote would be for
> >> IPA.
> >
> > No, I'd have to see first what the contenders were. But I really don't see
> > how that could ever come to a vote for the LLG, since most members of
> > the LLG (myself included) are not experts in phonetics.
>
> It would be good to get input from as large a group as is sensible, but
> I agree the size of the group may be somewhat smaller than is usual for
> such issues.  Is there a minimum size for a quorum?

The LLG currently has 28 members:
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=LLG+Members>
I'm not aware of any of them being an expert in phonetics, though I'm
sure at least a few of them know enough not to be dangerous. :)

>  You indicate
> there has been discussion on MEX before; perhaps you could give me a
> rough pointer into the archive so that I may get some background without
> needlessly filling up more forum space.)

There have been several discussions about it over the years, but I don't
remember any that might be particularly illuminating at this point. My
objection to MEX can be summarized as follows though: for simple
mathematical expressions, the ordinary grammar suffices, and for
complex expressions, the MEX machinery is inadequate anyway,
so what exactly is it good for?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.