From 3pC2ySwYHBs85ACz3y7vx.x97694wv819916z1C9FAD.x97@groups.bounces.google.com Tue Mar 30 09:59:28 2010 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3pC2ySwYHBs85ACz3y7vx.x97694wv819916z1C9FAD.x97@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NwemY-0006jB-So for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:59:25 -0700 Received: by mail-vw0-f61.google.com with SMTP id 3sf4939456vws.16 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:59:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received:received-spf:received:x-originating-ip:message-id :from:to:in-reply-to:mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l9wOGa3qya3iQo+MHMHyFjLntYvPYPyKVQkmCurT/4o=; b=GST9qOgrAfsqkfs4SuSM8+eknBkyV46CdCgEUeG9I4FbiQ7efZ/JygHaxqTN5MwX2o a0hcTFKYqyDe2L8DbdTUxrbYRsTJAyELfl9AjOTzT4Pak2fJExRRzPRbtwdehJx4UQcU reOudEURisgtCEtEeYN8v365mZvatqdxEQTJk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-originating-ip:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=6rYwvRdiLfX6I3cASoZn+YAmJwVENfNHicvYPGQ9kds5VG0K2KgopQM2Vrvb5fwg6I 40Du82eZzn3HrczIB8hgDZ2u5e8MZS9snwpJq3T1p0Fsdel8VER+/HFWLsYx1YFUyXSj sLOI4mKSUHNdr8x2hO2GYvgOUl00stfK5WN3w= Received: by 10.220.83.91 with SMTP id e27mr233002vcl.44.1269968292406; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.174.133 with SMTP id t5ls2774829vcz.2.p; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.65.156 with SMTP id j28mr1531838vci.27.1269968289243; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.148.211 with SMTP id q19mr475981ibv.19.1269959349717; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.148.211 with SMTP id q19mr475979ibv.19.1269959349363; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kcout01.prserv.net (kcout01.prserv.net [12.154.55.31]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 24si813340iwn.1.2010.03.30.07.29.09; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning kpreid@mac.com does not designate 12.154.55.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=12.154.55.31; Received: from [ipv6:::1] (linode.feoh.org[97.107.129.138]) by prserv.net (kcout01) with SMTP id <2010033014290820100hcjipe> (Authid: usinet.kpreid); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:29:09 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [97.107.129.138] Message-Id: From: Kevin Reid To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: [lojban] My opinion on Lojban typography variants, and the la .alis. sample page Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:29:06 -0400 References: <4BB0D4DF.2070501@gmail.com> <702226df1003291109p6508ea18q8fd9cd68f593a70c@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003291146h66475c74off6625befee8fdf5@mail.gmail.com> <8EE07369-765A-49AB-AEC4-1DEC1A904C37@gmail.com> <20100330090253.GG3000@nvg.org> <59C6A282-0F28-4016-98C7-907FBD3C4379@gmail.com> <23298cb41003300332u6bde63fdk9f8b819fff7bf2ce@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning kpreid@mac.com does not designate 12.154.55.31 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kpreid@mac.com X-Original-Sender: kpreid@mac.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/62f96e395a91e500 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/6f4671978073e00 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:35, Michael Everson wrote: > On 30 Mar 2010, at 11:32, Remo Dentato wrote: > >> I think that an example of a page with lojban text composed =20 >> according your proposal would be very beneficial for the discussion. > > OK. I mocked this up quite quickly. First, look again at the Yiddish =20 > example: > > http://www.evertype.com/books/alice-yi-p.1.png > > Then, have a look at the Lojban: > > http://www.evertype.com/books/alice-jbo-p.1.png Before anything else, I would like to say that I admire your patience =20 and your goal to balance typographical aesthetics and the wishes of =20 the Lojban community. Suggestions: I notice that your =93normal=94 (left side) Lojban text lacks any =93.=94 = =20 whatsoever. One of your objections seems to be the absence of non-=20 letter-based cues to beginnings and ends of sentences; how about =20 inserting the =93.=94 before =93i=94? One could debate whether doing just this is worse than fully-dotted or =20 fully-undotted Lojban text, and whether it would mislead beginners =20 into thinking that =93.=94 has something to do with sentence separation, = =20 but it at least has the advantage of being =93not wrong=94 and increasing = =20 the visibility of sentence separators. I, for one, am used to reading =20 =93.i=94 as being the sentence separator. In fact, considering that a real = =20 speaker will pause between sentences, arguably even =93... cu tcidu. i =20 ku'i cy ...=94 is not wrong as a representation. I think it should be at least tried to have the Lojban text fully =20 dotted (=93.i=94, =93cy.=94, =93.alis.=94, etc.); even if they do not fall = on =20 sentence separations, they add visual structure and might reduce the =20 =93wall of text=94 appearance of your left-side page. I note that you have placed capitalization-and-period for each plain =20 =93i=94, and the =93i ku'i=94, but not the logically-connected =93i ca bo= =94 (line =20 4 of paragraph 2) or =93i je nai ji'a=94 (line 1 of paragraph 3). I find = =20 this to be inconsistent; if you're going to be strict about Latin =20 conventions between unconnected sentences, you should use semicolons =20 between these connected sentences. My opinion on the matter in general: I see three major categories of possible differences: 1. Those which represent Lojban structure differently. For example, writing =E1=E9=ED=F3=FA instead of AEIOU for syllable stress. 2. Those which add redundant cues to the existing sentence structure. For example, adding quotation marks and question marks, or italicizing {ba'e}-marked words. 3. Those which add information. For example, capitalizing some sumti-selbri but not others, such as you have done with =93lo Blabi Ractu=94 vs. =93le glare djedi=94, or adding italics where there were= no emphasis markers in the text, such as in =93le Ractu ca'a lebna lo junla le kosta daski=94. I do not mind the first (especially when they have aesthetic value =20 such as, in my opinion, the use of accents instead of uppercase), am =20 ambivalent about the second (especially as they are somewhat analogous =20 to a speaker's use of tone), and object to the third (because I feel =20 it will confuse the reader as to the actual structure and significant =20 aspects of Lojban text). --=20 Kevin Reid --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.