Re: [lojban] Re: fu'ivla

[ignat 99 <ignat99@gmail.com>]

coi djan.

The Russian Federation characters.

IMHO,It is necessary in the document
http://www.lojban.org/en/publications/reference_grammar/chapter17.html#s17

to add
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_%28Cyrillic%29
after  line
e       .iestys. bu     .ebu

Because this is usual letter, not the archaic letter.

ki'e
.ignat.

On Apr 2, 2005 1:46 AM, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> --- ignat 99 <ignat99@gmail.com> wrote:
> > coi djo'n.
> 
> I go by {djan} (or occasionally {djon}, but with
> the lower, Loglan, /o/, not the higher Lojban /o/
> -- Loglan /ou/). /djo'n/ thus misses in several
> ways, but especially in that y'y can only occur
> between vowels and syllabic consonants do not
> count.  Also, of course, the /h/ in the english
> spelling of my name is silent.
> 
> > .i coi rodo
> >
> > >  It needs to be able to represent all
> > > the sounds of that language, but it would be
> > > wasteful for it to have separate symbols for
> > > sounds that never occur in that language
> > > directly,
> >
> > http://vzh.by.ru/DOC/NIK/01_1.jpg
> > You see many words without the gaps(space) this
> > because the Russian
> > language is used many letters too.
> 
> I was jsut comparing this text with the Coptic
> text of the Gospel of Mary and see the same
> feature, what we would call run-on.  apparently
> it was pretty universal at one time, at least for
> people who used scripts derived from Greek
> (Hebrew has, I think, special forms to mark the
> ends of at least some words; here we just have to
> know them).
> I don't get your last point about Russian using
> many letters.
> 
> > IMHO, Grammar of lojban is also weak in
> > comparison with the Russian.
> > But grammar of lojban very developed in
> > comparison with many other
> > artificial languages. Thanks. This is the very
> > good work.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by a developed
> grammar.  If you only mean complexity, then I
> concede the point but not note that Lojban's
> simplicity is one of the things that recommends
> it: it is easier to learn and it can be parsed by
> computers -- neither claim being one one would
> make for Russian.  If you mean something more,
> then I think you would have a hard time defending
> it: Lojban grammar is adequate for everything
> anyone has so far been inclined to say in Lojban;
> if there is something that can be said in
> Russiona but not in Lojban, it has not yet been
> pointed out.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > > In short, while the point I take you to be
> > making
> > > is an interesting one -- raising perhaps a
> > > different notion of an international language
> > --
> > > it does not seem to be a practical goal and
> > so
> > > failing to meet it is not to be counted
> > against
> > > Lojban or any other language.
> >
> > Thus, this Lojban is more  American
> > language(international language,
> > the 200  years of the history) than others
> > _local_ language (Slavic,
> > Chinese, Devanagari (Hindi), more the 2000
> > years of the history), yes
> > it is ???
> > :-)))))
> >
> Well, I am not sure that Lojban is particularly
> American -- as other people have pointed out: the
> alphabet, while of the same form as is used for
> American, is used in a radically different way
> and of course the grammar and the vocabulary are
> international based, not specifically american.
> It is American only in the sense that it was
> created in America and most of its earliest users
> were American, but this latter fact has long
> since been rectified.  As for history, Lojban has
> a history of about 20 years, based on Loglan,
> which goes back 50, and then on mathematical
> forms of formal logic, which go back 150, and the
> idea of an artifical international language goes
> back to the mid 1600's, I think.  Other
> languages, both natural and constructed, have
> much longer histories of course, but thye  were
> built -- in the constructed cases -- usually on
> different principles or for different purposes or
> -- i9n the case of natural languages -- sprang
> from different cultures, so comparisons are not
> entirely informative here.
> 
> > Ok, it is necessary to add the passed letter
> > "£"(.eobu)  into the
> > Lojban Russian alphabet.
> >
> http://www.lojban.org/en/publications/reference_grammar/chapter17.html#s17
> > We it actually use every day. This is actually
> > important for 150 000 000 mans.
> > It would be a good thing to correct the error.
> 
> Well, I can't work out what letter it is that is
> missing since it turns up in different forms on
> each copy of this letter, but, insofar as it is
> used, it should have a Lojban name.  And thre
> same goes  for letters in the other Cyrillic
> alphabets, maybe even including the archaic
> letters, like fita.
> 
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/