From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Jun 05 14:09:03 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Received: (qmail 20827 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2000 21:08:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Jun 2000 21:08:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO qg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2000 21:08:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 18727 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2000 21:08:44 -0000
Received: from n9.onelist.org (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by iqg.egroups.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2000 21:08:44 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.10.105] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2000 21:08:43 -0000
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:08:39 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: Again: transcription of Chinese cmene
Message-ID: <8hh4sn+ie73@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <393B5EF9.13F3@math.bas.bg>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 1569
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._T=FCting?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

--- In lojban@egroups.com, Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@M...> wrote:
> Alfred W. T=FCting wrote:
> > la pycyn. cusku di'e
> > > Chinese names seem to cause more trouble than most, probably
reflecting
> > > the vagaries of the different romanizations floating around.
The decision
> > > for names [...] seems to be to follow the PRC pinyin system...
> > 
la .ivan. pu cusku di'e

> Pinyin is not a transcription system; it is a romanisation system.

You're right, but all those systems try to give the correct sound
according their very conventions

> Of course one should strive for maximal preservation of the sound,
> but the preservation of contrast is also a very worthwhile goal.
> Chinese is a language with gargantuan homophony as it is, and it
> becomes worse when you lose the tones. So it is vital to collapse
> as few syllables as possible. I could live with a few artificial
> distinctions. For example, how about lojbanising Chinese _-n_
> as {m}, so that _-ng_ can unambiguously be {n}?

Right again (if Lojban allows???):
But why not write lb: /-ng/ (for Chinese ng-sound) and lb: /-n/ (for
Chinese n-sound) instead? The Lojban pronunciation: /n,g/ 
is much closer to -ng than Lojban: /-m/. 

Mandarin only has the consonant finals -n and -ng left (it has
dropped all the =A7J=A1n rusheng words endings -k, -t, -p (and -m)
of 
ancient language (e.g. of T'ang poetry) that are still preserved in
southern dialects Cantonese, Hoklo, Hakka etc..


Alfred *=AF=BFs

http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de
Traces of Butterflies' Dreams - ***/*=99 "Tieh Meng Hen"
My Poetry