From mark@kli.org Mon Sep 04 18:36:42 2000
Return-Path: <mark@kli.org>
Received: (qmail 5181 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 01:36:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 01:36:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (209.191.39.185) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 01:36:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 15239 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Sep 2000 01:31:58 -0000
Date: 5 Sep 2000 01:31:57 -0000
Message-ID: <20000905013157.15238.qmail@pi.meson.org>
To: lojban@egroups.com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009032253490.10331-100000@svetlana.mweb.co.za> (message from John Leuner on Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:54:54 -0200 (GMT+2))
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: learning lojban [2]
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009032253490.10331-100000@svetlana.mweb.co.za>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>

Thus Ivan:

>> Looks plain enough to me: Lojban {djon.} may be a usable
>> lojbanisation of English _Joan_ [dZoUn] is nothing better
>> can be found, but it is not valid to pronounce {djon.} as
>> [dZoUn], only as [dZon] or [dZOn].

A good point. Still, while [dZOn] sounds appropriately "John"-like, the
equally acceptable [dZon], while not quite "Joan", sounds pretty close. If
I heard it spoken as an English word, that's what it would be.

~mark