Re: Re: [lojban] Re: Zombie

["Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not talking about what should and should not be allowed. All I'm saying is that in Lojban, {ii}, is pronounced "yee", and {i} is pronounced "ee".

But no one disputes those pronunciations.  What's being discussed is whether it is a *good idea* to use it in fu'ivla like suggested {dzombii}.  It was already pointed out that {ii} is difficult for many globally.   In fact, {ii} is very marginal even in Lojban.  TTBOMK it was totally kept out of native vocabulary except for the interjection {.ii}, which I think was wise.  It'd probably be best to generally keep it and {uu} out of fu'ivla too.

The reason I brought it up is because someone was comparing {i} and {ii} to the single and double "i" in "principii" vs. "principi", which to my knowledge is a false comparison, because the difference between "i" and "ii" in THAT examples is not pronunciation, but vowel length ("ee" vs. "eeee").

Are you sure?  I didn't think that Standard Italian distinguished vowel lengths.  I looked up "principii" and it can only be the plural of "principio".  The singular "principio" is pronounced with Lojban-like {io} i.e. IPA [jo].  It is conceivable that *some* Italians say [ji] for {ii} through analogy.  That's just a guess, admittedly.

-- 
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.