From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Nov 14 15:20:16 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:20:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gk7ZK-0004Hm-QM for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:19:54 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gk7ZD-0004Hf-No for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:19:54 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id c2so1346849ugf for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:19:46 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DUKIyhtAZt2NFgp+PLrJCtvhDPPTJ0Qq66ez5RhNrx/j6WMTBmf9s3aY6yPFCIFFg6LSRmAC69JBsGCJyYbSIpYGFRjDLx2TpODUCi39MUzYM9Sx+PKL+Iib+5fH0G2R+CjDEm/aVGf1St5Zz78RLicsOuR9t33vWNCarX1htbc= Received: by 10.67.22.14 with SMTP id z14mr1736653ugi.1163546386212; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:19:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.2? ( [80.192.159.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l33sm3760283ugc.2006.11.14.15.19.45; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:19:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <455A4F10.2080600@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:19:44 +0000 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: "la" rule References: <20061114173413.83990.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <455A35B4.5020804@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <455A35B4.5020804@lojban.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 13172 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: and.rosta@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Bob LeChevalier, On 14/11/2006 21:31: > John E Clifford wrote: >> It seems to me that no trick so far discussed will work in practice: >> we will not remember to >> exempt certain syllables from names, we will forget pauses (though >> making {la} and the like to be >> learned as {la.} where the period is a genuine glottal stop might >> improve things). > > That is the essence of the problem. > > Without a solution that unquestionably will work and be used in > practice, the justification for changing the baselined status quo isn't > there. The Clsn solution works. It's hard to see why it wouldn't get used if it became official. > Those who like the pause-all-the-time solution can implement the > practice of pausing all the time to show that in fact people can and > will learn to do so, which could at least partially negate this > argument; that is a legal dialect. "Pause-all-the-time" is a very misleading description. The solution is rather to replace the words {la}, {lai} and {doi} by {la.}, {lai.} and {doi.}, i.e. [la?], [lai?], [doi?]. The idea that the phoneme /./ is realized by a pause at all, let alone as its primary allophone, is lunacy in a human language. A much more sensible analysis of the situation in Lojban is that the phoneme /./ (realized as [?]) can be unrealized when at the edge of a phonological string. > I suspect such a dialect would be > aesthetically displeasing, but we'd be able to judge by example. The aesthetic effect would be essentially identical to the status quo. Fair dos -- by all means argue for the sanctity of the baseline, but base that the standard sociopolitical arguments, not on a load of specious bollocks of the sort given above. --And. 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.