From pycyn@aol.com Fri Nov 23 13:30:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 23 Nov 2001 21:30:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 83135 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2001 21:30:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2001 21:30:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Nov 2001 21:30:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.f3.1296f2e1 (4007) for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:30:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:30:18 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] stress, capitalization & audiovisual isomorphism To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f3.1296f2e1.293019ea_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_f3.1296f2e1.293019ea_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/23/2001 2:25:54 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > (NB Remember that an unambiguous orthography is not necessarily > an audiovisually isomorphic one.) > > The result would look disgusting, but if the AVI requirement > is suspended in this instance then AVI violation would not > be a legitimate objection to other orthographies that, for > instance, get rid of the apostrophe. > This depends upon the details of the function involved in the isomorphy. Presumably one complex enough into include features like penultimate-syllable-ness would make (in this case) unambiguous and isomorphic the same. The problem with dropping apostrophes is -- if you mean all of them -- that then you don't even have unambiguous, and -- if you mean just the predictable ones -- that you still have a whole lot of essential ones left. The remaining stress marks are rare and (so far as I can tell) never essential: we may mispronounce a name, but not interfere with its referential function any worse than our urrent errors do. --part1_f3.1296f2e1.293019ea_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/23/2001 2:25:54 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:



(NB Remember that an unambiguous orthography is not necessarily
an audiovisually isomorphic one.)

The result would look disgusting, but if the AVI requirement
is suspended in this instance then AVI violation would not
be a legitimate objection to other orthographies that, for
instance, get rid of the apostrophe.




This depends upon the details of the function involved in the isomorphy.  Presumably one complex enough into include features like penultimate-syllable-ness would make (in this case) unambiguous and isomorphic the same.  The problem with dropping apostrophes is -- if you mean all of them -- that then you don't even have unambiguous, and -- if you mean just the predictable ones -- that you still have a whole lot of essential ones left.  The remaining stress marks are rare and (so far as I can tell) never essential: we may mispronounce a name, but not interfere with its referential function any worse than our urrent errors do. --part1_f3.1296f2e1.293019ea_boundary--