Re: [lojban] stress, capitalization & audiovisual isomorphism

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

pc:
#a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:
#> (NB Remember that an unambiguous orthography is not necessarily
#> an audiovisually isomorphic one.)
#> 
#> The result would look disgusting, but if the AVI requirement
#> is suspended in this instance then AVI violation would not
#> be a legitimate objection to other orthographies that, for
#> instance, get rid of the apostrophe.
#
#This depends upon the details of the function involved in the isomorphy.  
#Presumably one complex enough into include features like 
#penultimate-syllable-ness would make (in this case) unambiguous and 
#isomorphic the same.  

That's my view too.

#The problem with dropping apostrophes is -- if you mean 
#all of them -- that then you don't even have unambiguous, and -- if you 
#mean just the predictable ones -- that you still have a whole lot of essential 
#ones left.  The remaining stress marks are rare and (so far as I can tell) 
#never essential: we may mispronounce a name, but not interfere with its 
#referential function any worse than our urrent errors do.

My preferred scheme for getting rid of apostrophes is to replace i and u
in diphthongs by y and w and then delete all apostrophes. The resulting orthography is, I think, unambiguous, but it makes the signification of
<y> subject to more complex rules than the other letters. That extra
complexity had been called by Lojbab a deviation from AVI.

--And.