From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Dec 06 09:02:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 17:02:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 61991 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 17:02:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 17:02:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 17:02:48 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021206170246.QTFK2203.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:02:46 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206114215.03b80ec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 11:50:22 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Official Tengwar! In-Reply-To: <2DE1036E-08FF-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 08:43 PM 12/6/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: > > At 04:22 AM 12/5/02 -0800, Theodore Reed wrote: > >> Which Tengwar orthography? I recall there being like 5 different > >> versions, three of which are elrond's. When I made the LojbanTengwar > >> yudit input mode (available if anyone wants it), I used one of > >> elrond's > >> with a few minor mods. > > > > The one in CLL is the officially baselined non-standard %^) > >Which means Raymond, of course. Where ideas come from does not matter. I disagree with his politics as much as anyone, and did not much approve of putting Tengwar in CLL, since it seemed frivolous to me (not being a Tolkien or Tengwar aficionado). >OK, I admit this is a wholly frivolous thing to bring up (in either >sense); but if anyone is going to have the nerve to say "Elrond's >schemes are illicit, because CLL gives Raymond's", then we either say >"CLL can't be official about stuff it describes as unofficial, please >get a grip" But it is official; just not standard (or is that vice versa %^). If we had known better, John could have described it as "proposed" or "experimental", which people seem to accept as explicitly meaning that it has a lower standing (to the point where And argues that he wants to eliminate the distinction - so we can't win). > --- or we pass an addendum into the CLL at that point, >saying "there are other Tengwar schemes out there, by people actually >still with us as opposed to blogging about the right for infants to >bear arms" :-) . Stop after the comma, and that sounds like a useful byfy decision. >Note that backward compatibility was mostly retained with Raymond's >scheme in the consonants. At least, mostly. And I think they are all >mutually intelligible. I have no idea on the merits of the various proposals; I know nothing about Tengwar other than that it is pretty squiggles. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org