Re: coi rodo - mi'e .aulun.

["Alfred W. Tüting" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>]

--- In lojban@egroups.com, "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@l...>
wrote:


> I could post this (and/or put it on the website).  Unfortunately,
this
> official mapping led to severe collision because so many pinyin
letters
> mapped to schwa; we also did not at the time understand how C+i
sounded
> (e.g. pinyin "zi"), though I have since had this clarified.

Would be interested in!

> If we had it to do over again, we would map "ong" to "on(g?)" and
not to
> "yn".

IMHO this mapping to lb: "yn" most probably is based on a
misunderstanding, maybe going back to pronunciation standards in
southern Chinese dialects like Cantonese: Mandarin (pinyin) -eng (lb:
-yn(g)) very often is pron. -ong (=ung) or -un in
southern dialects (e.g. BIG5 Â× pinyin: feng1, "fruitful/abundant"
in dialect is *written* and pronounced "fung" - pron. in
'virtual' pinyin about: fong -, or BIG5 ­· pinyin: feng1, "wind"
etc. in dialect written and pron. "fun" as in Cantonese taifun, BIG5
¤j­·, pinyin: dafeng!)
Pinyin "-ong" should be transcribed to lb: "un(g)" *not* -yn (e.g.
mau.dzydun.)

> The g is questionable because Lojban maps the /ng/ consonant to
> /n/.  As someone noted, if the g is present it is pronounced
separately
> from the n.  But the real problem is that in gismu making we could
have
> ended up with the g and not the n in the Lojban word, and the g by
itself
> without the n is probably useless to a Chinese speaker for
recognition.

In Mandarin there can be no g-ending except in -ng, so this would not
necessarily lead to much misunderstanding to a Chinese
speaker familiar with lojbanization. BTW, in southern dialects, there
are lots of consonant endings, e.g. in Hakka language BIG5 «È
®a (=Hakka or "guest families"), pinyin: ke4 jia1, it is "hag-ga".

One principle question:
For what reason cmene have to follow the strict rules of Lojban
phonology?? If it just were for computers to understand the
language, isn't it sufficient to enclose cmene (first of all personal
names etc.) in the structure beginning with the cmene indicators
"la" and the "."? Shouldn't it be the main goal to giving the reader
an idea of what the name word is pointing to and what's its
common/real pronunciation? So, e.g. writing la maozedong. (instead of
la mau.dzydun.) would function a lot better in this sense. Or,
writing the the cluster "ng" in (e.g. Chinese or German) names could
imply that it's not pronounced like in British/American
English as two separated consonants (Engl.: fin-ger, Germ.: Finger),
so the reader is not obliged to pronounce it the lb way.
In Glosa language, all 'foreign' words (like 'french', 'english'
etc.) had been 'incorporated' (i.e. left untouched). I wouldn't go
that
far, though.

co'o mi'e .aulun.