On 12 March 2012 01:06, Marjorie Scherf <
skaryzgik@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 21:35, John E. Clifford <
kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Point? You don't use footnotes in spoken anything. In written anything,
>> you use the standard footnote conventions. Loglan long ago (1960) had an
>> array of typesetting cmavo which were soon discarded as totally
>> irrelevant;why bring them back?
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>
>
> So if I'm understanding John correctly here, I can write a book in (or
> translate a book into) lojban, use little asterisks or superscript numbers,
> and have the matching ones at the bottom of the page, and it would still be
> considered good, grammatical lojban?
>
> At first this is surprising, but when I try to think up my objections, they
> seem to come down to orthography rather than grammar. For example, an
> orthography which didn't use "Arabic" numerals probably wouldn't use them to
> mark footnotes, at least not in the ordered, numerical way they are meant
> when they are used with the Roman letters typically used for English. Though
> the same symbols may well be commandeered for use as random symbols to be
> used like asterisks. Though I don't know any actual standard conventions for
> such things in other than English, so I could be wrong even about this. But
> my point with this hypothetical example is that typesetting is much more
> closely linked to the orthography than the grammar. Supposing I or someone
> else made a whole new orthography that worked entirely differently than
> anything I've actually seen or heard of before, I'd have the exact same
> typography questions to answer all over again anyway.
>
> So I suppose the question becomes, then, would an orthography (including
> such typesetting conventions) be considered "valid" according to the various
> lojbanic principles? I remember one of the big deal ones being that for a
> given speech stream, there is one spelling for it, and vice versa. Though it
> has been a while since I read those things, and I might not be remembering
> it or it's accepted interpretation correctly.
>
> .imu'omi'e .skaryzgik.
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.