From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Dec 06 19:15:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Dec 2002 03:15:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 36448 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 03:15:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2002 03:15:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao01.cox.net) (68.1.17.244) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 03:15:27 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021207031525.PWYI2199.lakemtao01.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:15:25 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206215544.03176420@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 22:01:27 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Baseline statement In-Reply-To: References: <200212061219.HAA17239@mail2.reutershealth.com> 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 03:28 AM 12/7/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: >* 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. Which means that Raymond's Tengwar doesn't allow you to cram a name up against another word like that. >* In Loglan terms, srutio is always pronounced as [srutjO] (with a >mid-open vowel, whereas normal o is mid-close!) I think you are incorrect. From L1: >The phoneme o has the value [oh] (IPA [o]) except before i or r. In just >these two contexts o has the value of [aw] in English 'law' (IPA []). >* The notion that Loglan transliteration constrains Lojban phonotactics >remains perverse. I want the "Get A Grip" reading to apply to all of >2.12. I agree. But I want to say "Get a Grip" to Type IV fu'ivla supporters as well. Then there is no argument. > 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." But only when we start trying to push the boundaries of what is a legal Type IV fu'ivla is there any question about how the phonotactics of Lojban interact with the morphology. 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