Subject: Re: Baseline statement

From: Nick Nicholas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 19:28:49 +1100

Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:48:30 -0500
From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Baseline statement

Pointing out that getting special meetings to happen is difficult is 
not part of the solution, it's part of the precipitate. If this means 
the next members meeting needs to rejig the bylaws, well then, it'll 
rejig the bylaws. As has been promised to happen for the past decade.

I think the notion that a Loglan transliteration (described as 
'oddball' in CLL!) constrains Lojban phonotactics is ludicrous.

Saying that anything oddball mentioned in CLL is more authoritative 
than anything oddball not in CLL (for example, that we are obliged to 
follow Eric Raymond's Tengwar rather than elrond's) is not much less 
ludicrous.

I know what Lojban phonology is, and it is that the sequence VV is 
distinct from V'V: apostrophe is a phoneme, and comma isn't. That's 
true of .i'o and .io, and I see nothing in the phonology to say it's 
not true of ti'o and tio.

Besides, now that I've read the blasted thing, John had anticipated 
this anyway:

Lojban sruti'o = Loglan sruti,o
Lojban srutio = Loglan srutio

The comma is a phoneme in Loglan transliteration, which does much of 
the work of the Lojban apostrophe. Therefore, sruti'o and srutio are 
distinct in Lojban, and this is not annulled in the Loglan 
transliteration, which also renders them distinctly. Therefore the 
difference between the two remains legit.

Goddammit. All this rigmarole because you misremembered the 
transliteration. For shame.

###
ki egeire arga ta sthqia ta qlimmena;#Nick Nicholas, French/Italian
san ahdoni pou se nuxtia anoijiata # University of Melbourne
thn wra pou kelahda epnixth, wimena! # [email-masked]
stis murwdies kai st' anqismena bata.# http://www.opoudjis.net
-- N. Kazantzakhs, Tertsines: Xristos#