Subject: Re: [lojban] stress, capitalization & audiovisual isomorphism

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:55:01 +0000

>>> John Cowan <[email-masked]> 11/26/01 05:23pm >>>
#And Rosta wrote:
#> 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 orthography is, I think, unambiguous, but it makes the signification of
#> <y> subject to more complex rules than the other letters. That extra
#> complexity had been called by Lojbab a deviation from AVI.
#
#Indeed, it would be: specifically, it would cease to be an isomorphism,
#since <y> would sometimes mean [@] and sometimes [j].

but <y>-adjacent-to-V would always mean [@] and <y>-not-adjacent
to-V would always mean [j]. And vice versa from sound to spelling.
So why is this less of an isomorphism than <V>-in-penult-syllable
= stressed-[V] and <V>-not-in-penult = unstressed-[V]?

#you are free to retort that already <i> means sometimes /i/ and
#sometimes /j/, but I will riposte that there is no /j/ in
#Lojban.

My retorts are never so bereft of wisdom as that would be...

--And.