[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: "la" rule
Bob LeChevalier, On 14/11/2006 21:31:
John E Clifford wrote:
It seems to me that no trick so far discussed will work in practice:
we will not remember to
exempt certain syllables from names, we will forget pauses (though
making {la} and the like to be
learned as {la.} where the period is a genuine glottal stop might
improve things).
That is the essence of the problem.
Without a solution that unquestionably will work and be used in
practice, the justification for changing the baselined status quo isn't
there.
The Clsn solution works. It's hard to see why it wouldn't get used if it became official.
Those who like the pause-all-the-time solution can implement the
practice of pausing all the time to show that in fact people can and
will learn to do so, which could at least partially negate this
argument; that is a legal dialect.
"Pause-all-the-time" is a very misleading description. The solution is rather to replace the words {la}, {lai} and {doi} by {la.}, {lai.} and {doi.}, i.e. [la?], [lai?], [doi?].
The idea that the phoneme /./ is realized by a pause at all, let alone as its primary allophone, is lunacy in a human language. A much more sensible analysis of the situation in Lojban is that the phoneme /./ (realized as [?]) can be unrealized when at the edge of a phonological string.
I suspect such a dialect would be
aesthetically displeasing, but we'd be able to judge by example.
The aesthetic effect would be essentially identical to the status quo.
Fair dos -- by all means argue for the sanctity of the baseline, but base that the standard sociopolitical arguments, not on a load of specious bollocks of the sort given above.
--And.