Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Chinese names

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:32:23 -0400

"Alfred W. T|ting" wrote:

> For example, the German language's standard displayed in IPA is not
> exactly the language of one certain region, but attached to the 
> rules of pronunciation of so-called "stage speech".

Granted. But not all languages are in this position, for better or worse.

> It's okay giving the last word of how a certain cmene has to be
> pronounced, to the very bearer of the name respective. But should
> common names like Johnson, Mueller, Smith, Jack - or *Bob* follow
> individual rules??

For English, at least, there is no other choice, as English lacks any
widely accepted standard pronunciation, in the sense of a single
pronunciation which cultivated speakers aspire to using and learn
to approximate. Cultivated Bostonians, Londoners, and Texans don't
sound anything alike, nor do they desire to. (If you train
to become an actor or a TV news reader, you will be taught a specific
national non-regional accent, but that is specialized to those occupations.)

As for Mueller, there is in particular a split between /m@l,R/ and /mjul,R/
in this country. Neither of which is much like /mYl@/.

> I do not like at all seeing words like 'Bob',
> John etc. written lb: bab., djan. instead of bob. and djon.

I assure you that "djan" is the pronunciation of my name, not only
by me, but by nearly 250 million other English-speakers.

> The American way of pronunciation may be a bit different to the British
> accent, i.e. the o vowel pronounced 'darker' and more going towards
> the a vowel: but it still *is* an "o" and *not* an "a"! If you
> really have a closer look at it, you'll 'see' the difference e.g.
> between (American) 'Bob' and 'hum'

The vowel of "Bob" is that of "father", only shorter. The vowel of
"hum" is closer to Lojban "y". This does not apply to every American
dialect, and certainly not to Canadian English.

> (BTW, *what* American local
> accent should be the norm? - Boston? Middle Western? ...)

Precisely why there is no alternative to individual treatment.

> I think one should accept the standard orthography (often
> indicating *how* a sound is looked at by the native speakers
> themselves - moreorless 'psycho-linguistically').

That would demand that "Wilde" [waild] be Lojbanized as ".uild."
[wild]. English orthography just isn't a useful guide.

> So - American: "Robert" never can be 'felt' as "Raaaaaaabert" (maybe
> by somebuddddy totally unknown of their own written
> language - a pre-school child etc.).

My Sprachgefühl says otherwise.

> (Due to selfrestriction) the means of Lojban for*appropriate* display
> of sounds (other than Lojban themselves) are so narrow,
> that it seems almost ridiculous to pay so much attention to slight
> personal, local variations in pronouncing a language that *has* a
> fixed orthographic state pointing to a pronunciation standard.

English has two fixed orthographic states and *no* pronunciation
standard. Ditto for Norwegian, and perhaps other languages as well.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)