[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form


On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:13 PM, <maikxlx@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. 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

--
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.