Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Baseline statement

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 22:01:27 -0500

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 [email-masked]
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