Subject: Alphabet (was Re: More stuff)

From: Nick Nicholas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:05:07 +1100

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 13:19:50 -0500
From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: More stuff

Not debating you on type 4 fu'ivla, but a general comment. I think 
you're wrong to scuttle a form like srutio through the back door. If 
Lojban does officially allow Type 4 fu'ivla, whether or not it 
encourages them, then either srutio is a type 4, or it's nonsense. The 
Loglan transliteration cannot be binding in my view on that issue; I 
would encourage an erratum on it anyway; and the real solution is for 
the BPFK to issue a clarification on fu'ivla, as discussion here has 
been inching towards anyway.

> At 02:41 AM 12/6/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:

> The only real issue here is respect for the cultures of other
> languages. Who are we (or Unicode) to say that n~ is really two 
> letters
> rather than one, if Spanish speakers wish to allocate it separate 
> status in
> their alphabet?

Not what I'm saying:

* Unicode do get to say "we think n~ is two letters". They get to say 
whatever they want; they set a computationally tractable standard. 
(This is why lots of people don't like them --- primarily the Japanese 
and Chinese, since they conflate their ideograms.) Since they're also 
realists, they admit n~ as a single letter --- but with a canonical 
decomposition to two.

* But I'm not saying thou shalt not call it one letter. Do if you 
please -- with name.bu; it's just less bother. What I do object to is 
the liberty in ordering the component letters in tei...foi; I still 
don't see a compelling call for it.

But like I say, I'm not calling for the elimination of tei...foi; that 
is too much of a break for our mandate. I'm saying I wouldn't object to 
the deprecation of the particular cmavo (tei > tei'au or whatever), and 
in fact I wouldn't even object to the deprecation of the construction 
itself, by exploring what cmene can do. But i think that's outside the 
scope of the BPFK.

I'm incorporating your hierarchy of fundamentalism into my wiki 
description of the BPFK. We do need this kind of thumbnail guide.

(*)(*)(*)
http://www.opoudjis.net DR NICK NICHOLAS; FRENCH & ITALIAN,
UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE [email-masked]
"Some of the English might say that the Irish orthography is very 
Irish.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for a people who can create 
something
so grotesque." -- Andrew Rosta