Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Baseline statement

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:48:31 -0500 (EST)

Nick Nicholas scripsit:

> * Raymond's Tengwar doesn't have commas or dots. Therefore, if the CLL 
> Loglan orthography means that the sruti'o/srutio distinction in Loglan 
> is illegal, then the Raymond Tengwar means that a distinction between 
> lis.te and liste is illegal. And remember, CLL does not say the Loglan 
> transliteration is inherently less 'oddball' than the Tengwar.

No more it does. But dots and commas don't distinguish anything (given
that we have spaces between words, as all known orthographies do, except
maybe Hiragana?). The difference between VV and V'V is fundamental.

> * I don't know how this can be patched, and if I didn't think this 
> whole thing was pointless, I'd rather discard the whole thing in an 
> erratum and just say that i'V and u'V *always* map to i,V and u,V, 
> whatever the morphology of the word. 

I agree.

> * The notion that Loglan transliteration constrains Lojban phonotactics 
> remains perverse. I want the "Get A Grip" reading to apply to all of 
> 2.12. If not, then I would support an erratum adding at the end that 
> "where any of these orthographies fail to make distinctions made in the 
> conventional Roman orthography of Lojban, the latter is regarded as 
> binding for the phonotactics of Lojban."

I go for GaG.

-- 
Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme): [email-masked]
One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically http://www.reutershealth.com
Challenges poets who / Don't have the time. --robison who's at texas dot net