Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of cowan@ccil.org designates 192.190.237.11 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.190.237.11;
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:11:47 -0500
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form
Message-ID: <20141220161147.GD22447@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20141214190350.GD29313@mercury.ccil.org>
 <CACf3dPkhW5upoj+wXWbdVqovhZw2FtG2xcUcBkmJ4dP-rRjBBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7tK2emCtHOCBQBtgDWuGx70vnBotX0Cbq9WCstcp7scx6=dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACf3dPkzzbPCTTMvkhywgU2KVOHbuFcDH_SHWxnXpUK2tXhZnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5660b66f-68e1-4e9c-b4ce-1713a7bf1491@googlegroups.com>
 <CACf3dPnCyyKUaedusZTLVO3Oza-hao=USjysQS0YtKFwh5kizA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b15591f9-6745-49af-83c6-445550017c90@googlegroups.com>
 <7317B43184D74BC1B4767AA54F8988EA@gmail.com>
 <a1a15cc7-5f8f-4131-978c-c7ee693801f3@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2cM0iv8uWY2Hu3GPPxqx93k_y2i8psjJe-ig=USS--Qeg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cM0iv8uWY2Hu3GPPxqx93k_y2i8psjJe-ig=USS--Qeg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -
Content-Length: 1959

Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas scripsit:

> Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform. My assumption is th=
at
> Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", "le .i", "le i=
i"
> and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: /lehi/, /le?i/, /le?ji/,
> /leji/, /lei/, /lej/.

There is also "lei .i".

> Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei".

Yes.

> That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and fo=
r
> me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too close to /le?i/,
> closer than /leji/ is to /lej/, due to syllable count.

I recognize the force of this, but becdause "lei .i" has to be "lej?i"
I think "le .ii" has to be /le?ji/.  This is no worse than the similarity
of initial "ii" and "i", which (for example) is completely inaudible
to sinophones:  they write "pinyin" (in Latin script) but pronounce
it /pinin/.  In practice this means that /ji/ has to be pronounced with
an approximant.

It really sucks to have "ii" and "uu" at all.  They should be confined to
the attitudinals, and *never* used anywhere else.

> I would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferred pronunciations, the first
> one for "le ii" and the second one for "lei".

I agree that /lei/ should be dispreferred for "lei".

--=20
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.