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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:00:49 +0000

>>> <[email-masked]> 11/26/01 10:09pm >>>
[email-masked] writes:
#> #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]?
#
#Hard to argue the point, except to say that the isomorphism would likely fail 
#at the phonemic level, since the y-glide is an allophone of /i/, not /y/.  
#And there is the added glyph w for something that is only an allophone of 
#/u/. On the other hand, it gets rid of ', an unsightly object, which 
#nonetheless represents a real sound and not an allophone of anything #(except non-juncture). So, as Chao would say, we could reanalyse the 
#sound system, making the ' be an automatic reflex of vowel-vowel contact 
#when glottal stop was absent. But then we would always have to write in 
#glottal stops (or maybe just be more careful about spaces). While we're at 
#it, why not make the glide an allophone of /y/ -- and make w also apply to 
#the buffering vowel yer, allowing one to write out dialects?

If we are going to discuss hypothetical alternative orthographies, these
are rather appealing suggestions. <w> for the buffer vowel would work
(i.e. be unambiguous) even if we stayed agnostic about the phonemic analysis.

--And.