Re: [lojban] Isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru

[iesk <pa.fae@gmx.de>]

I am undecided on which way I would prefer. Option b) is probably clearer than option a). And 'forethought {lu}/{li'u}' *is* a sensible interpretation of the function of those dashes.

However:
Lojban grammar does (as far as I know) *not* provide a way to indicate voice inflection [voice modulation? English is an L2 to me] in written text. Isomorphism has its limits. I'm quite sure that that has been clear from the beginning.

The assumption

(LASELPAhI:)>It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed to match.

could easily be a first step in the wrong direction---leading to the 'Lojban has to be spoken in a monotonous computer voice' fallacy, couldn't it?

(The fallacy I have in mind is:
Lojban has a.v. isomorphism.
Lojban has no voice-modulation cmavo or whatever.
Thus, Lojban is to be read without voice modulation.)

I don't see why reading (interpreting) the text with appropriate voice inflection would't be a Lojban performance. And that, I opine, could be the most pleasing kind of performance, to the listener.

By the way:
If we do take isomorphism (in the limited-thus-sensible sense) seriously, don't we then have to ask what it means that the text *doesn't* indicate speaker change by means of {lu}/{li'u} (while it could as well do so)? I mean, supposing of course that the translator did that on purpose and not by oversight, it could be a stylistically slightly weird text---like an English text without punctuation.

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