From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Nov 26 08:54:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 26 Nov 2001 16:54:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 42149 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 16:54:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2001 16:54:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 16:54:43 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:30:30 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:08:16 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:07:51 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] stress, capitalization & audiovisual isomorphism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: #a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: #> (NB Remember that an unambiguous orthography is not necessarily #> an audiovisually isomorphic one.) #>=20 #> 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. = =20 #Presumably one complex enough into include features like=20 #penultimate-syllable-ness would make (in this case) unambiguous and=20 #isomorphic the same.=20=20 That's my view too. #The problem with dropping apostrophes is -- if you mean=20 #all of them -- that then you don't even have unambiguous, and -- if you=20 #mean just the predictable ones -- that you still have a whole lot of essen= tial=20 #ones left. The remaining stress marks are rare and (so far as I can tell)= =20 #never essential: we may mispronounce a name, but not interfere with its=20 #referential function any worse than our urrent errors do. My preferred scheme for getting rid of apostrophes is to replace i and u in diphthongs by y and w and then delete all apostrophes. The resulting ort= hography is, I think, unambiguous, but it makes the signification of subject to more complex rules than the other letters. That extra complexity had been called by Lojbab a deviation from AVI. --And.