From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Wed Dec 11 06:05:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 11 Dec 2002 14:05:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 86810 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 14:05:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Dec 2002 14:05:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail013.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.171) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 14:05:08 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17180.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.40]) by mail013.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gBBE57N04007 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:05:07 +1100 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:05:07 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Alphabet (was Re: More stuff) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <8DBF55A5-0D11-11D7-8AA3-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 13:19:50 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier 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 nickn@unimelb.edu.au "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