Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> 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/.

There is also "lei .i".

> Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei".

Yes.

> 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 recognize the force of this, but becdause "lei .i" has to be "lej?i"
I think "le .ii" has to be /le?ji/.  This is no worse than the similarity
of initial "ii" and "i", which (for example) is completely inaudible
to sinophones:  they write "pinyin" (in Latin script) but pronounce
it /pinin/.  In practice this means that /ji/ has to be pronounced with
an approximant.

It really sucks to have "ii" and "uu" at all.  They should be confined to
the attitudinals, and *never* used anywhere else.

> I would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferred pronunciations, the first
> one for "le ii" and the second one for "lei".

I agree that /lei/ should be dispreferred for "lei".

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

-- 
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.