[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality
On 7/9/06, Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:
To more directly answer your question: Nothing is in place to prevent
what you describe, but there are no guidelines. IMHO, guidelines help;
the rules already in place in Lojban are good, but can be improved, for
specialist purposes.
If what you want are official guidelines about a phonetic alphabet, then
I can hardly see any more authoritative guidelines than those provided
by the International Phonetic Association. They will be orders of magnitude
better than the guidelines that a small group of people with a cursory and
amateurish knowledge of phonetics can give you. A phonetic alphabet
is by its very nature not associated with a particular language, so there
is not much point in associating one with Lojban.
>> Your secondary thought (thank you for sticking with the issue to have
>> such deeper thoughts) appears to be: If it comes down to the point
>> where there *is* a vote on one phonetic alphabet, your vote would be for
>> IPA.
>
> No, I'd have to see first what the contenders were. But I really don't see
> how that could ever come to a vote for the LLG, since most members of
> the LLG (myself included) are not experts in phonetics.
It would be good to get input from as large a group as is sensible, but
I agree the size of the group may be somewhat smaller than is usual for
such issues. Is there a minimum size for a quorum?
The LLG currently has 28 members:
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=LLG+Members>
I'm not aware of any of them being an expert in phonetics, though I'm
sure at least a few of them know enough not to be dangerous. :)
You indicate
there has been discussion on MEX before; perhaps you could give me a
rough pointer into the archive so that I may get some background without
needlessly filling up more forum space.)
There have been several discussions about it over the years, but I don't
remember any that might be particularly illuminating at this point. My
objection to MEX can be summarized as follows though: for simple
mathematical expressions, the ordinary grammar suffices, and for
complex expressions, the MEX machinery is inadequate anyway,
so what exactly is it good for?
mu'o mi'e xorxes