[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Baseline statement
At 03:28 AM 12/7/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
* Raymond's Tengwar doesn't have commas or dots. Therefore, if the CLL
Loglan orthography means that the sruti'o/srutio distinction in Loglan
is illegal, then the Raymond Tengwar means that a distinction between
lis.te and liste is illegal.
Which means that Raymond's Tengwar doesn't allow you to cram a name up
against another word like that.
* In Loglan terms, srutio is always pronounced as [srutjO] (with a
mid-open vowel, whereas normal o is mid-close!)
I think you are incorrect. From L1:
The phoneme o has the value [oh] (IPA [o]) except before i or r. In just
these two contexts o has the value of [aw] in English 'law' (IPA []).
* The notion that Loglan transliteration constrains Lojban phonotactics
remains perverse. I want the "Get A Grip" reading to apply to all of
2.12.
I agree. But I want to say "Get a Grip" to Type IV fu'ivla supporters as
well. Then there is no argument.
If not, then I would support an erratum adding at the end that
"where any of these orthographies fail to make distinctions made in the
conventional Roman orthography of Lojban, the latter is regarded as
binding for the phonotactics of Lojban."
But only when we start trying to push the boundaries of what is a legal
Type IV fu'ivla is there any question about how the phonotactics of Lojban
interact with the morphology.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org