[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru
la .iesk. cu cusku di'e
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 agree that this would be a bad conclusion. However, in Lojban it
should technically be okay to pronounce "mi do viska" with a rising
intonation or to have an expressionless face while saying ".u'i sai" or
even to smile while saying "ui nai". You can scream or whisper, but it
has no impact.
I'm not saying you must pronounce the text in a monotone voice; I'm
saying voice shouldn't matter one way or the other.
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.
It would be, yes.
My policy usually is: If the necessary words are there (e.g. ba'e, UI,
.etc), then you may or may not choose to do something with your
voice/pronunciation that reflects those words, but the text mustn't lose
any information if you subtract from it all those nuances in your speech
pattern.
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.
This one I think is much easier to answer. All you need to do is imagine
an implicit "sei X cusku" in the appropriate places. This is perfectly
fine, but as noted, it can be hard to follow in some places. The burden
is on the reader (and their perfomance) moreso than on the listener.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
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.