From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Jul 16 16:38:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 52470 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2006 23:10:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m32.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Jul 2006 23:10:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Jul 2006 23:10:39 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G2Fka-0002CQ-HD for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:10:12 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G2FjE-00029y-3c; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:08:49 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G2Fil-00029c-7K for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:08:19 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.177]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G2Fij-00029V-An for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:08:19 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so3419117pye for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.91.10 with SMTP id t10mr3035735pyl; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [70.224.74.45]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id w63sm1355482pyw.2006.07.16.16.08.15; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44BAC603.8090204@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:04:35 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20060711030851.88782.qmail@web56404.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <44B39FC4.1030804@gmail.com> <44B41321.6050608@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 12225 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: hobyrne@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Hugh O'Byrne From: Hugh O'Byrne Reply-To: hobyrne@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Example of Cultural Neutrality X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=0xdVV7kZlOT79KJYb4Yq2TTHhq0hWKk_eHLQ9rk6fQCdmgYKIw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26650 Maxim Katcharov wrote: > To rephrase, you need to show that adding this alphabet has greater > benefits than the (in my opinion severe) detriments of multiple > writing systems for a single language. :-) I'll rephrase again. I need to show that adding one recommended phonetic alphabet has greater benefits than the alternative. What is the alternative that allows expressions from *any* language in the world? The alternative is _lots_ of alphabets. *That's* severe. > This is IPA. I think that many would agree, despite its somewhat weird > symbols, that it is the global standard, and that the global standard > would be the thing to use. And that introducing a competing global > standard without very good reason probably isn't a good idea. Okay, so your vote (if it ever comes to a vote) is for IPA. I'm perfectly fine with that, it's a good choice. (I think it's possible there could be a better choice...) > I didn't think that you wanted to ban native dialects, only to > introduce an extended phonetic alphabet (which would be better done by > the IPA), or an alternate basic alphabet (one, or four! (the sound of > a palm smacking a forehead) already-widely-used alphabets is quite > enough). "better done by the IPA"... I have initiated contact with the IPA. > I, for one, would be extremely annoyed if everyone suddenly started > talking in their own unique simple-replacement-cypher. I, for one, am somewhat annoyed that there are so many many types of symbol (symbol sets, even!) allowed in ZOI, when one symbol set would suffice (apart from exceptional cases like Nora LeChavilier described). > Well, if the proposal is to add something like "it is recommended that > when writing, if the intent is blah, then .... and the best thing to > do is of course to write the native alphabet on top with IPA beneath", > then, well... sure. My belief was that this was how it is/would be > handled regardless. That sounds like a pretty good wording for the proposal. It never hurts to suggest. > Even the phonetician who intends to communicate > the symbols in writing would tend to "speak the written version of the > language" (if you will), and write the symbols. If communicating to another person who is expected to know the language, certainly. The number of people who would learn one symbol set to become fluent (aurally, if not perceptually) in reading all spoken languages of the world is greater than the number of people who would learn several symbol sets, and their associated (sometimes complex, sometimes even contradictory) rules. -- Good night, and have a rational tomorrow! mi'e .xius. 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.