[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: Example of Cultural Neutrality
Maxim Katcharov wrote:
To rephrase, you need to show that adding this alphabet has greater
benefits than the (in my opinion severe) detriments of multiple
writing systems for a single language.
:-) I'll rephrase again. I need to show that adding one recommended
phonetic alphabet has greater benefits than the alternative. What is
the alternative that allows expressions from *any* language in the
world? The alternative is _lots_ of alphabets. *That's* severe.
This is IPA. I think that many would agree, despite its somewhat weird
symbols, that it is the global standard, and that the global standard
would be the thing to use. And that introducing a competing global
standard without very good reason probably isn't a good idea.
Okay, so your vote (if it ever comes to a vote) is for IPA. I'm
perfectly fine with that, it's a good choice. (I think it's possible
there could be a better choice...)
I didn't think that you wanted to ban native dialects, only to
introduce an extended phonetic alphabet (which would be better done by
the IPA), or an alternate basic alphabet (one, or four! (the sound of
a palm smacking a forehead) already-widely-used alphabets is quite
enough).
"better done by the IPA"... I have initiated contact with the IPA.
I, for one, would be extremely annoyed if everyone suddenly started
talking in their own unique simple-replacement-cypher.
I, for one, am somewhat annoyed that there are so many many types of
symbol (symbol sets, even!) allowed in ZOI, when one symbol set would
suffice (apart from exceptional cases like Nora LeChavilier described).
Well, if the proposal is to add something like "it is recommended that
when writing, if the intent is blah, then .... and the best thing to
do is of course to write the native alphabet on top with IPA beneath",
then, well... sure. My belief was that this was how it is/would be
handled regardless.
That sounds like a pretty good wording for the proposal. It never hurts
to suggest.
Even the phonetician who intends to communicate
the symbols in writing would tend to "speak the written version of the
language" (if you will), and write the symbols.
If communicating to another person who is expected to know the language,
certainly. The number of people who would learn one symbol set to
become fluent (aurally, if not perceptually) in reading all spoken
languages of the world is greater than the number of people who would
learn several symbol sets, and their associated (sometimes complex,
sometimes even contradictory) rules.
--
Good night, and have a rational tomorrow!
mi'e .xius.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.