Received: from mail-ie0-f191.google.com ([209.85.223.191]:62039) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y74OV-0005t1-Oe; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:44:10 -0800 Received: by mail-ie0-f191.google.com with SMTP id at20sf3023245iec.28; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:44:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=Zzm1FdaevgXKo5TRygsF41JJJ2/KVSFh4U4hZdrhq4s=; b=GLS/R4YA1awzZFPbhg1qogJtWe7t3oMpmicjVYriPMGqUpLbXLTGUsXJCvFSD6pjLi /0vcuPQT8d3cV6POH0A5McEP+srO3i5J3s1HP2LWVch3S0OxuMAPMBaYnccbxW8rm+lA N7FxS+ibntluF55ZCZNk3bcmbgabFu/y/b08jRrEWjZmFIURW+qlzjoO3QFASJp9GGKE 3FZO8I3zWCeEjRvVjPFdhXpAhyplEW0yDgcQasQEe7HJ8sXBc7q6qIHRYm6bI+dM4/J2 2k3lusBfWR2KP0JtcSnwCZaFk65Lv9mOBf3KuSj6shmzdhA81L7BfjXqDRo7HiNDiczi A6oA== X-Received: by 10.140.96.85 with SMTP id j79mr1298018qge.2.1420213441104; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:44:01 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.31.181 with SMTP id f50ls4163354qgf.65.gmail; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.45.68 with SMTP id o44mr1402394yhb.51.1420213440875; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u2si3437587igh.0.2015.01.02.07.44.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b; Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ar1so16711174iec.2 for ; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.32.77 with SMTP id g74mr28634315iog.6.1420213440679; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.148.38 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.148.38 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:44:00 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form From: Alex Burka To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140c84ca31946050bad355d X-Original-Sender: durka42@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=durka42@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: 20540 --001a1140c84ca31946050bad355d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Right, it doesn't work for the ones that have the glide near the beginning. But it can work for the many Linnaean fu'ivla and possibly others. On Jan 2, 2015 10:30 AM, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > i proposed it for influ'enza and i already added it. > > 2015-01-02 6:03 GMT-08:00 guskant : > >> The poll was closed on December 27, 2014. The winner is >> >> 2. disallow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla. >> >> I will create a BPFK page about this agreement. Please modify la >> camxes so that it as well as la jbovlaste conforms to it. >> >> There is a concomitant problem that some fu'ivla/cmevla and >> experimental ma'ovla in la jbovlaste are now invalid. I remember that >> la gleki proposed adding an apostrophe between Cg and V. I don't agree >> to it because that may produce conflicts between some words, and >> transform some fu'ivla into lujvo. I would prefer giving them >> automatically "100000 down-votes" just like the inverse of official >> words, and notifying the creators of them of the reason. Any idea? >> >> >> 2015-01-02 17:05 GMT+09:00 Gleki Arxokuna : >> > 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. >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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. --001a1140c84ca31946050bad355d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Right, it doesn't work for the ones that have the glide = near the beginning. But it can work for the many Linnaean fu'ivla and p= ossibly others.

On Jan 2, 2015 10:30 AM, "Gleki Arxokuna&qu= ot; <gleki.is.my.name@gmai= l.com> wrote:
i proposed it for influ'enza and i already added it.<= /div>

2015-01-02 6= :03 GMT-08:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
The poll was closed on December 27, 2014. The winn= er is

2. disallow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla.

I will create a BPFK page about this agreement. Please modify la
camxes so that it as well as la jbovlaste conforms to it.

There is a concomitant problem that some fu'ivla/cmevla and
experimental ma'ovla in la jbovlaste are now invalid. I remember that la gleki proposed adding an apostrophe between Cg and V. I don't agree<= br> to it because that may produce conflicts between some words, and
transform some fu'ivla into lujvo. I would prefer giving them
automatically "100000 down-votes" just like the inverse of offici= al
words, and notifying the creators of them of the reason. Any idea?


2015-01-02 17:05 GMT+09:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
> 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.i= a}.
> The reason of asking this is that some people are complaining at the h= igh
> level of fricatives, 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...@g= mail.com scripsit:
>>>
>>> > This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide = will make
>>> > it sound much like /v/.=C2=A0 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 six= ty years
>>> /u/ has been moving forward in all or most accents, whereas /w= / has
>>> remained fully back.=C2=A0 Consequently, even the semivowel pr= onunciation 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 nearer to [u] than to [y], but = it's definitely
>> not cardinal.=C2=A0 Some time ago I encountered analyses of Englis= h vowels in
>> which /i/ and /u/ were represented as just two more diphthongs &qu= ot;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 fro= ntward.=C2=A0 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/.=C2=A0 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<= br> >> optionally pronounced as two glides separated by a brief schwa, ef= fectively
>> as */iyi/ and */uyu/.=C2=A0 This optional pronunciation might be p= referred 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, <mai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrot= e:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii&= quot; contrast in number of syllables.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then the situation is better than what I described.=C2=A0 = But the distinction
>>>> between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gra= tuitous IMHO.=C2=A0 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/ -> &quo= t;le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei".
>>>
>>> That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for &quo= t;le ii", and
>>> for me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too cl= ose 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&quo= t;.
>>>
>>> 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"=C2=A0 =C2=A0but I'm working under the as= sumption 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 questionabl= e whether Lojban
>> can preserve self-segregation while allowing initial glides withou= t the
>> glottal stop in fluent speech, given such possible sequences 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 seems to me = to be a
>> separate issue from forbidding /ii/ and /uu/ outside the two excep= tions, and
>> from the idea of preserving {.nitcion.} while allowing it to be pr= onounced
>> either ['ni.tSjon] or ['ni.tSi.jon], which is the main ide= a 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 Gro= ups
> "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 &= 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 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.
--001a1140c84ca31946050bad355d--