From araizen@xxxxxxx.xxxx Tue Sep 28 15:53:20 1999 X-Digest-Num: 247 Message-ID: <44114.247.1360.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:53:20 +0200 From: "Adam Raizen" From: Robin Turner > > la .ivan. cusku di'e > > > Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > > Yes, "turkie" is what I was complaining about; you missed the final > > > consonant so it isn't a valid cmene [...]. Hmm. Should it have been > > > {turki,es}? I don't know Turkish. > > > > No, but you know Hebrew, so you're familiar with the Semitic feminine > > ending whose forms alternate between /t/ and /h/ or nothing (the former > > typically under liaison, the latter usually before pause). This is > > an Arabic toponym, and if it is to be made into a cmene, the natural > > choice for a final consonant is {t}. > > The only Turkish dictionary I have in the office is the one without the > etymological notes, so I'm on shaky ground here. "Türk" is obviously > Turkic, and the "iye" suffix certainly looks like the Arabic feminine ending > (most commonly found in Turkish in personal names e.g. "Nazmiye" as the > feminine form of "Nazim"). On the other hand, I wouldn't want to get > etymological with cmene and fu'ivla. What we want is a word which suggests > "Turkey" or "Türkiye" (preferably both). {turkie} or {turki,e} manage this > reasonably well (if you try saying them out loud, the result is pretty > similar). A final consonant needs to be as unobtrusive as possible, so I'd > still go for {s} . Incidentally, {turkiet} sounds a bit too much like > "Türkiyat", the old word for "Türkoloji" for my tastes. > > For "Turk" and "Turkish" in general (and porbably "Turkic"), I'd make > fu'ivla using {-turko}, so {kulnrturko} would be the culture of > Turkic-speaking peoples, as opposed to {kulnrturkie}, the culture of Turkey > (which includes considerable non-Turkic elements, of course). > > co'o mi'e robin. > I would suggest "tri'iki". I realize that it doesn't look much like most languages pronunciation or spelling of Turkey, but since it's of the form CCVVCV, and so conforms to the rafsi fu'ivla proposal in section 16 of chapter 4 of the href grammar, I think it works best. Using "i'i" as the two consonants may not be as recognizable at first glance as "u'u", but if the sound in Turkish is the same as French u (IPA [y]), it should definitely be i, since [y] is a valid allophone for the letter i. This may not look exactly like most other languages, but this often happens when learning another language. (And we normally go for sound over spelling in Lojban, consider "djan".) An English speaker learning French might not recognize "Londres" at first glance, but if they're told it's the French way of saying "London", it would probably be fairly easy to remember. In the case of Lojban, the goal is to obtain the closest pronunciation of the native pronunciation so as not to be culturally biased, and so the "strange" Lojban form can easily be explained to a learner. The last letter could be either "i" or "e"; I chose "i" because then it matches the other vowels and creates a sort of a vowel harmony (though not in the Turkish sense, I realize). In any event, it doesn't really matter since rafsi fu'ivla aren't supposed to differ only in the last letter. co'o mi'e adam Adam Raizen araizen@newmail.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." --George Washington