Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gusni.kantu@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+jskjscmqF4H42WYbNVQSO_LAyNfGhO3x7hhUcbqTmAew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACf3dP=rO4GXPpKuAW22ZtZ9T0rt4drQGn1JucojB_moP9BZhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <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> <20141220015319.GA22447@mercury.ccil.org>
 <9d32b667-8feb-45c9-97e2-f6ea0a771947@googlegroups.com> <CAO7bV+jskjscmqF4H42WYbNVQSO_LAyNfGhO3x7hhUcbqTmAew@mail.gmail.com>
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 23:03:37 +0900
Message-ID: <CAO1AUJMXSt3JXn=aahDYjUWYp+V_+=9VTiB6DAVDENzVtWKimg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -
Content-Length: 6533

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 <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.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. <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
>>> > 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, <mai...@gmail.com> 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.