Received: from mail-ig0-f187.google.com ([209.85.213.187]:64654) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y72yI-0004d4-CK; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 06:12:59 -0800 Received: by mail-ig0-f187.google.com with SMTP id hn15sf3108340igb.24; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 06:12:52 -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=EqfxGu5IyUWR7I+TnHW+kqz+PYC+S48f4vlKY5MljUQ=; b=yBiissvk9lKrjoGBMrIKPvhfkp5mJjsbvrnVEtGg0LMRZIUkYba8cHebFmlCprypTO OXvWGHept+ZTUyfA7WOke5yXeuS0UCmSFxgM6MOa6CSrOM7FqFf+i9EYo78jpuvshOze XsWF3+Y490Pd+cvYkVM7W1bGb5l7aLUnC7/j1LLicPA3QNxdo+QQzSntV57Mx0+H++Vk vH0t3IxJF2BeraLMTNRlUly1hxeYSMusaZC1GbnhFHQtzmu+mdSC1jmNuE27dcZjPC/Z 6OLZ1XYDg4OluRe8ESr74vnIB9Cg8gdqpj6mEcpX649eRqM7q7aR1hldv9h9F3YNASdF goiw== X-Received: by 10.51.16.226 with SMTP id fz2mr891705igd.16.1420207972126; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 06:12:52 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.61.200 with SMTP id s8ls2872632igr.37.gmail; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 06:12:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.73.4 with SMTP id h4mr49079109igv.3.1420207971935; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 06:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q6si753931igh.3.2015.01.02.06.12.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Jan 2015 06:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231; Received: by mail-ie0-x231.google.com with SMTP id rd18so16610245iec.22 for ; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 06:12:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.134.133 with SMTP id pk5mr52183338igb.3.1420207971712; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 06:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.148.38 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 06:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.148.38 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 06:12:51 -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 09:12:51 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form From: Alex Burka To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e0b59a947ac050babef28 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::231 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: 19032 --047d7b2e0b59a947ac050babef28 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think we should move the now-invalid words to the "obsolete fu'ivla" category (we may need to create an "obsolete experimental cmavo" category as well) and see if there are systematic ways to fix some of them that we can agree on (for example, maybe adding apostrophes when it doesn't result in a lujvo, or doubling the glide vowel CgV => CggV). Automatically downvoting them to -10000 would make a lot of words simply disappear and I don't like that. On Jan 2, 2015 9:03 AM, "guskant" wrote: > 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. --047d7b2e0b59a947ac050babef28 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think we should move the now-invalid words to the "ob= solete fu'ivla" category (we may need to create an "obsolete= =C2=A0 experimental cmavo" category as well) and see if there are syst= ematic ways to fix some of them that we can agree on (for example, maybe ad= ding apostrophes when it doesn't result in a lujvo, or doubling the gli= de vowel CgV =3D> CggV). Automatically downvoting them to -10000 would m= ake a lot of words simply disappear and I don't like that.

On Jan 2, 2015 9:03 AM, "guskant" <= gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrot= e:
The poll was clos= ed 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<= 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...@gmail.com scrip= sit:
>>>
>>> > 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 b= pfk-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-li= st+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.
--047d7b2e0b59a947ac050babef28--