Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Baseline statement

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:07:22 -0500 (EST)

Nick Nicholas scripsit:

> 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.

Alas, no, he's right and you and I are wrong.

The mapping in lujvo is Std "i'o" = Alt "io", since Std "io" can't occur
in lujvo. The mapping in fu'ivla is Std "i'o" = Alt "i,o" and Std "io" =
Alt "io".

So Std "sruti'o" (being a lujvo) maps to Alt "srutio", and "Std" "srutio"
(being a fu'ivla) maps to Alt "srutio". Bzzzzt.

-- 
First known example of political correctness: John Cowan
"After Nurhachi had united all the other http://www.reutershealth.com
Jurchen tribes under the leadership of the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Manchus, his successor Abahai (1592-1643) [email-masked]
issued an order that the name Jurchen should --S. Robert Ramsey,
be banned, and from then on, they were all _The Languages of China_
to be called Manchus."