[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[jbovlaste] Re: Alice in Wonderland nix
- To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
- Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Alice in Wonderland nix
- From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:55:33 -0800 (PST)
- Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:57:31 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rogers.com; s=s1024; t=1292507733; bh=yiZDGIMe9HMlvKaNKcEVdWCVEG5mQaXgfF2Qj8XtFEs=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=opB7QKd7eYcvmRyC6cM7RZLwrEC7fScVORiH/hFb467x3oQ1+o6cEUX8JST+tn/woX/CiL/FkxK8wR+1uGwu1ReeNXoN1HhOR9XCf9A+eTXwuMPK8Q22BaSGwM9gUVdRDdKRvs7xvtDDPB3Jz8KnUKHsKuq9/P9bXTDrnmr3PBk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=D7j21sxEYafmr5jpkICgEEqkM11Bb9wyFzyWqOh+4w3woMQqywEJ0FH5iCWry5ZHsc4E2J15Vxk167g4i9a8C2pjHXUCBbcDOwoYn7bBPkF7GdfX4vfg42vJBUwuvf0qHbMXF/XeKeUzjH0vkqKhR6HE+N5dXnRZ6CwPNJwnbc4=;
- Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTimo83mBb95NjETQhjOxZQy=5=sEstnx1+MLsRaM@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <143260.7676.qm@web88005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <201012141326.05329.phma@phma.optus.nu> <758400.4191.qm@web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <AANLkTimk71Tavbe-5zWxb1+hRB+5dnE=_siNHO25=6rp@mail.gmail.com> <821066.98318.qm@web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <AANLkTikYVun2xBHRpwjFc0u=SZA-XsrgLOxderjvoDuD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimo83mBb95NjETQhjOxZQy=5=sEstnx1+MLsRaM@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
- Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
>{nanl} could also work. Maybe it's best for the long run rule (assuming any
>consonant pair can be properly pronounced at the end of a word).
I don't think it can. It's barely distinguishable for {nan}.
totus
>
>Like I said, I think it's more important to decide on a rigid rule than try to
>maintain some apparent symmetry (that obviously wasn't very apparent to anyone
>here).
>
>I believe there are more titles than what has been up-to-now presented, and
>their number can keep growing in the future as titles evolve, so you can't rely
>on symmetry to always be available.
>
>Some more titles:
>"sir/madam" - perhaps {nol} (or {nolnim} and {nolnaun} if you want gender
>specifics)
>"judge" - {paip}
>"captain" - {ja'aj}
>etc...
>
>
>On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>I have no problem with syllabic "L", so don't mind "nanl".
>> --gejyspa
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I see.
>>>>I still think {nax} is a confusing choice given its rafsi association.
>>>>I think, given the lack of a short rafsi for {nanla} we could resort to:
>>>>{nanlal}.
>>>
>>> If we use {naun} for 'Mr.' then we can use {naux} for
>>> Master. Symmetry preserved!
>>>
>>> totus
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > So I propose also these rafsi-based cmevle:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > {nim} for Ms.
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Since no rafsi are available for Mr. and Master,
>>>>>> > I propose:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > {nax} for Master
>>>>>> > {nan} for Mr.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How about {naur}? What's {nax} from, besides the
>>>>>> North Caucasus?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason I chose {nax} and {nan} was to provide some
>>>>>symmetry - although I don't feel that strongly about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>.nix. (Miss)
>>>>>.nax. (Master)
>>>>>.nan. (Mister)
>>>>>.nim.(Ms)
>>>>>Aviv, the meaning of 'Master' here is the male counterpart of 'Miss'.
>>>>>Not much used in English these days, but it is used in other
>>>>>languages.
>>>>>
>>>>>Using short rafsi as a base was a fine idea, but we can't stick to it
>>>>>too religiously. {nanla} doesn't have a short rafsi, so {nax} was an
>>>>>obvious choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>totus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>