Re: [lojban] Re: language codes was: So what do we say for Swedish?

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:16 PM, symuyn <rbysamppi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2. For country fu'ivla, why would using ISO 3166-2 (three-letter
> codes) be worse than 3166-1 (two-letter codes)? The three-letter
> codes:
>  A. Resemble their autonyms more
>  B. Are more future-robust
>  C. Would have the same algorithm as the languages, except for the n/
> g exception (I think).

In addition to what Leo said, a three letter code could not use quite
the same algorithm for countries, because of the pecularities of the
gismu "bangu" and "gugde".

For codes that begin with a vowel, a bang- or gugd- prefix are equally usable.

For codes that begin with a consonant however, ban- is much more
effective than gug-, for two reasons: any consonant except "n" can
follow "n", and "nC" is never a permissible initial. After "gug-" a
much more limited set of consonants can follow, and also "gr" and "gl"
are permissible initials, which will cause the leading "gu" to fall
off in most cases. e.g. gugru'usu -> gu gru'usu.

Another advantage that "bangu" has is its "bau" rafsi, which allows us
to use "baur-" as a meaningful prefix when the code starts with "n" or
"g".. For gugde we can use "gu'er-" too, but that means adding one
syllable, and also it would not be just for two consonants but for c,
d, f, g, h, k, l, p, q, r, s, t, x, and we would even have to make an
exception to the exceptions and use "gu'en-" when the code starts with
"r". So, a lot more "exceptional" cases (in fact more than the
non-exceptional ones: b, j, m, n, v, w, y, z).

We were quite lucky with "bangu" and its two rafsi.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.