Subject: Re: Again: transcription of Chinese cmene

From: "Alfred W. Tüting" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:08:39 -0000

--- In [email-masked], Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@M...> wrote:
> Alfred W. Tüting 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 §J¡n 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 *¯¿s

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