Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la mark cusku di'e

> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
> 
> >From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>
> >Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:53:20 +0200
> >
> >From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>
> >
> >I would suggest "tri'iki". I realize that it doesn't look much like most 
> >languages pronunciation or spelling of Turkey, but since it's of the 
> >form CCVVCV, and so conforms to the rafsi fu'ivla proposal in 
> >section 16 of chapter 4 of the href grammar, I think it works best.
> 
> FWIW, I'm not at all sanguine about Stage 4 fu'ivla pretty much ever, at
> this point in the language (and possibly ever, period).  Lojban's tricky
> enough with lujvo and rafsi and contextually-defined cmene; I'd rather not
> add fu'ivla (which have place structures and all) to the mix without at
> least flagging them with a classifier rafsi.  So to me, {gugdrturki,e} or
> {kulnrturki,e} is just fine, as appropriate (or {jectrturki,e}, etc).  If
> you don't like the comma, fine, use the diphthong, whatever.  If you need
> lujvo from those (which is stretching it; tanru should do in most cases)
> there's always {zei}.  In fact, a fair amount of the time you can even make
> do with just the cmene and {zei}.  So to me, even a correct and well-chosen
> Stage 4 fu'ivla is still not something I'd want to see.
> 

Maybe the average stage 4 fu'ivla isn't right for this stage of the 
language, but I think that at least cultural fu'ivla could be added as 
stage 4 fu'ivla, especially since there's a mechanism defined for 
doing so. The place structure isn't a problem; for all such words it's 
"x1 pertains to the culture in aspect x2." 

> >Using "i'i" as the two consonants may not be as recognizable at 
> >first glance as "u'u", but if the sound in Turkish is the same as 
> >French u (IPA [y]), it should definitely be i, since [y] is a valid 
> >allophone for the letter i. This may not look exactly like most other 
> >languages, but this often happens when learning another language. 
> 
> Still, even Turks are used to seeing "Turkey" (or "Turk*") in just about
> every other Latin-alphabet orthography.  That can't be a coincidence; /y/
> is close to /i/ in other languages as well.  

No, it's not a coincidence; they all copied the spelling and not the 
pronunciation. It's up to Lojban to set the world straight zo'o.

> Between that and the
> metathesis (ok, is the accent on the second of third syllable in that
> word??) of the /r/, the word is pretty hard to recognize.  Particularly
> dangerous in a word not canonized in "official" lists.
> 

Whenever you have a very rigid pattern like CCVVCV some words 
are going to need to be forced a bit. This happened with the gismu 
culture words too sometimes. How recognizable is "kisto" at first 
glance?

Anyway, I don't think that we should let what "official" lists say hold 
us up, otherwise we'd never get any new words. Maybe if you're 
using a word like "tri'iki" which is likely not to be recognized it 
should be explained at first, but if everyone's worried about whether 
it's "official," it will never be used.

> >The last letter could be either "i" or "e"; I chose "i" because then it 
> >matches the other vowels and creates a sort of a vowel harmony 
> >(though not in the Turkish sense, I realize). In any event, it doesn't 
> >really matter since rafsi fu'ivla aren't supposed to differ only in the 
> >last letter.
> 
> Fair enough, but note that {o} is the traditional ending for cultural
> brivla in Lojban.
> 

Actually I think that -o is the ending for the gismu which weren't 
made by the algorithm.

> ~mark


Adam Raizen
araizen@newmail.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
                                         --George Washington