From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Jun 05 14:09:03 2000 Return-Path: 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?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, Ivan A Derzhanski 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