Received: from mail-la0-f64.google.com ([209.85.215.64]:57443) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y6xFa-0007no-L9; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:06:28 -0800 Received: by mail-la0-f64.google.com with SMTP id gq15sf1875066lab.19; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:06:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=QeHw4VN+pzszXJlz303ja3hOrciSbxs8qCir9cCGZo0=; b=TjiKKZZSImGcJngHjd2A5OLy+ER5STgPeyW0Tk3kTS2grSV3RCtMz4NjYr09wEbkqE wId6epP/RBzKnC0h4F1cuuBdu67HBgjX6z5J0y/bBbiwwFt/R5y0QglOxG/qkA/lWhR2 KvH06rZmjX3ifYaAK2FxIztVLu1ZMkZlWyfierD8/y/u/WdA34473l5G7swc8Kh0J5wh qqniX2DTG7SmHNliduq38JzOzVlL8FCXf4yv3hqz3RJL/NgFUPhFYyttG07VoQBAAKZf 68+uPULb0TePqiOtAIJG15FSoPqY0/gtpYH0/L7/71n+SznZiog/APlxZB3p/v4JytU7 d64Q== X-Received: by 10.152.27.170 with SMTP id u10mr10501lag.7.1420185978991; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:06:18 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.205.98 with SMTP id lf2ls2185338lac.16.gmail; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:06:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.37.193 with SMTP id a1mr118012lak.3.1420185978415; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j6si1136213wix.1.2015.01.02.00.06.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::231; Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n12so23646058wgh.8 for ; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:06:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.91.234 with SMTP id ch10mr151356168wjb.114.1420185978243; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:06:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 00:05:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9d32b667-8feb-45c9-97e2-f6ea0a771947@googlegroups.com> References: <20141214190350.GD29313@mercury.ccil.org> <5660b66f-68e1-4e9c-b4ce-1713a7bf1491@googlegroups.com> <7317B43184D74BC1B4767AA54F8988EA@gmail.com> <20141220015319.GA22447@mercury.ccil.org> <9d32b667-8feb-45c9-97e2-f6ea0a771947@googlegroups.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 11:05:58 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfcf25abf8f41050ba6d02d X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::231 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Content-Length: 13720 --047d7bfcf25abf8f41050ba6d02d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Can such a morphology be imagined (without too much damage to existing lujvo and cmavo but ignoring possible damage to fu'ivla) that {'} in cmavo can be pronounced as {i}? E.g. {.i'a} could be also pronounced as {.iia} as opposed to {.i.ia}. The reason of asking this is that some people are complaining at the high level of fricatives, namely, glottal and velar ones. 2014-12-20 23:41 GMT+03:00 Mike S. : > > > On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:53:25 PM UTC-5, John Cowan wrote: >> >> mai...@gmail.com scripsit: >> >> > This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide will make >> > it sound much like /v/. Not many natural languages have a /w/-/v/ >> > distinction to begin with, and the needless presence of /uu/ in the >> > language makes that distinction tougher. >> >> The reason /wu/ works well in English is that for the last sixty years >> /u/ has been moving forward in all or most accents, whereas /w/ has >> remained fully back. Consequently, even the semivowel pronunciation of >> /w/ won't blend into the following /u/. >> > You're right, and it's easy to verify when I try to form a glide directly > from my /u/. My /u/ is still nearer to [u] than to [y], but it's > definitely not cardinal. Some time ago I encountered analyses of English > vowels in which /i/ and /u/ were represented as just two more diphthongs > "iy" and "uw" (i.e. lax vowels + glides [Ij] & [Uw]). This is probably the > general reason why words like "yeast" work, and why /u/ is drifting > frontward. That suggests that Lojban /ii/ and /uu/ might work if the > second vowels could be lax, but lax vowels are probably just as problematic > as fricative-bordering /i/ and /u/. We're agreed that the best thing is to > rule against /ii/ and /uu/ anywhere outside of the two aforementioned cmavo. > > Another possibility is that the anomalous /ii/ and /uu/ words are > optionally pronounced as two glides separated by a brief schwa, effectively > as */iyi/ and */uyu/. This optional pronunciation might be preferred by > some speakers, and should be made available IMHO. > > On Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, xorxes wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:13 PM, wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii" contrast in number of syllables. >>>> >>> >>> Then the situation is better than what I described. But the distinction >>> between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuitous IMHO. Wouldn't it be better >>> to allow these two to be variants of {lei}? >>> >> >> Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform. >> > > Five out of eleven so far have voted to strike {.nitcion.}, > {.buenosaires.} and {.xuan.} from the language, which is at least as > radical a reform as anything else that has been suggested, I'd say. > > > >> My assumption is that Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms >> "le'i", "le .i", "le ii" and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: >> /lehi/, /le?i/, /le?ji/, /leji/, /lei/, /lej/. >> >> Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei". >> >> That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and >> for 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 would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferred pronunciations, the first >> one for "le ii" and the second one for "lei". >> >> Now, if "ii" was not a Lojban word, things would be different, and we >> could give /lej/, /lei/ and /leji/ all to "lei", and /le?i/ and /le?ji/ to >> "le .i" but I'm working under the assumption that "ii" is a Lojban word >> and needs to be accomodated. >> >> mu'o mi'e xorxes >> >> I agree with John Cowan's points -- to me it's questionable whether > Lojban can preserve self-segregation while allowing initial glides without > the glottal stop in fluent speech, given such possible sequences like /le > ia/ and /lei ia/. Maybe it can, so long as we forbid CGV in all non-cmevla > (which I think is a good idea anyway). But that seems to me to be a > separate issue from forbidding /ii/ and /uu/ outside the two exceptions, > and from the idea of preserving {.nitcion.} while allowing it to be > pronounced either ['ni.tSjon] or ['ni.tSi.jon], which is the main idea that > I was trying to suggest. > > mi'e .maik. mu'o > > -- > 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 > email 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. > -- 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 email 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. --047d7bfcf25abf8f41050ba6d02d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can such a morphology be imagined (without too much damage= to existing lujvo and cmavo but ignoring possible damage to fu'ivla) t= hat {'} in cmavo can be pronounced as {i}?
E.g. {.i'a} could be= also pronounced as {.iia} as opposed to {.i.ia}.
The reason of a= sking this is that some people are complaining at the high level of fricati= ves, namely, glottal and velar ones.
=
2014-12-20 23:41 GMT+03:00 Mike S. <maikxlx= @gmail.com>:


On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:53:25 PM UTC-5, John Cowan wrote:=
mai...@gmail.com scripsit:

> This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide will make= =C2=A0
> it sound much like /v/.=C2=A0 Not many natural languages have a /w= /-/v/ =C2=A0
> distinction to begin with, and the needless presence of /uu/ in th= e=20
> language makes that distinction tougher. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0

The reason /wu/ works well in English is that for the last sixty years
/u/ has been moving forward in all or most accents, whereas /w/ has
remained fully back.=C2=A0 Consequently, even the semivowel pronunciati= on of
/w/ won't blend into the following /u/.
You're right, and it's easy to verify = when I try to form a glide directly from my /u/.=C2=A0 My /u/ is still near= er to [u] than to [y], but it's definitely not cardinal.=C2=A0 Some tim= e ago I encountered analyses of English vowels in which /i/ and /u/ were re= presented as just two more diphthongs "iy" and "uw" (i.= e. lax vowels + glides [Ij] & [Uw]).=C2=A0 This is probably the general= reason why words like "yeast" work, and why /u/ is drifting fron= tward.=C2=A0 That suggests that Lojban /ii/ and /uu/ might work if the seco= nd vowels could be lax, but lax vowels are probably just as problematic as = fricative-bordering /i/ and /u/.=C2=A0 We're agreed that the best thing= is to rule against /ii/ and /uu/ anywhere outside of the two aforementione= d cmavo.

Another possibility is that the anomalous /ii/ and /uu/ wor= ds are optionally pronounced as two glides separated by a brief schwa, effe= ctively as */iyi/ and */uyu/.=C2=A0 This optional pronunciation might be pr= eferred by some speakers, and should be made available IMHO.

On Sa= turday, December 20, 2014 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:13 PM, <<= a>mai...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 P= M UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

=
"lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii" cont= rast in number of syllables.=C2=A0

Then the situation is better than what I described.=C2=A0 But the distinction= =20 between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuitous IMHO.=C2= =A0 Wouldn't it be=20 better to allow these two to be variants of {lei}?

Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform.

Five out of eleven so far have voted to stri= ke {.nitcion.}, {.buenosaires.} and {.xuan.} from the language, which is at= least as radical a reform as anything else that has been suggested, I'= d say.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
My ass= umption is that=20 Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", &q= uot;le .i", "le=20 ii" and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: /lehi/,= /le?i/,=20 /le?ji/, /leji/, /lei/, /lej/.

=
Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i&= quot; and /lej/ -> "lei".=C2=A0

That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", an= d for=20 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 would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferr= ed pronunciations, the first one for "le ii" and the second one f= or "lei".

Now, if "ii" was not a Lojban word, things would be different, and we= could=20 give /lej/, /lei/ and /leji/ all to "lei", and /le?i/ and /le?ji/= to "le .i" =C2=A0 but I'm working under the assumption that "ii&quo= t; is a Lojban word=20 and needs to be accomodated.=C2=A0

mu'o mi'e xorxes

=
I agree with John Cowan's points -- to me it's questio= nable whether Lojban can preserve self-segregation while allowing initial g= lides without the glottal stop in fluent speech, given such possible sequen= ces like /le ia/ and /lei ia/.=C2=A0 Maybe it can, so long as we forbid CGV= in all non-cmevla (which I think is a good idea anyway).=C2=A0 But that se= ems to me to be a separate issue from forbidding /ii/ and /uu/ outside the = two exceptions, and from the idea of preserving {.nitcion.} while allowing = it to be pronounced either ['ni.tSjon] or ['ni.tSi.jon], which is t= he main idea that I was trying to suggest.

mi'e .maik. mu'o<= br>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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 ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--047d7bfcf25abf8f41050ba6d02d--