From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Aug 03 22:11:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 4 Aug 2001 05:11:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 78084 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2001 05:11:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2001 05:11:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2001 05:11:03 -0000 Received: from user.lojban.org (ppp41.net-A.cais.net [205.252.61.41]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f745B1o15659 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010804005911.00cc9ba0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 01:09:07 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: (C)V'{i|u}V In-Reply-To: <20010803222032.D407@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010803124308.00bb95b0@pop.cais.com> <9kd1g5+u5fk@eGroups.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010803124308.00bb95b0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 10:20 PM 8/3/01 +0100, Richard Curnow wrote: >On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 12:53:37PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > > At 04:48 PM 8/3/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > >that {bue} was considered an unofficial but valid spelling of > > >{bu'e}, so this leads me to wonder whether /bue/ (as opposed to > > >/bu'e ~ bu,e/ truly is legal. > > > > bue and bu,e are considered alternate orthographic/phonologic forms of the > > same word. > >I thought there was a discussion some time back when it was concluded >that bu,e was treated equivalent to bu'e. I don't recall such a discussion, and it has the problems you pointed out. HOWEVER, bu,e is equivalent to bu'e in the alternate orthography proposed for rapprochement with the TLI Loglan community. But that orthography can't be mixed with the standard orthography. So what is the true situation regarding commas appearing between pairs >of vowels? What have I missed? The word resolution algorithm basically ignores commas. They were intended to be a pronunciation aid and do not change the word from what it would be without the comma. However, it appears that at some point, Cowan and I decided to treat commas between vowels as you recall, because Book pg 32 says >The comma is used to indicate a syllable break within a word, generally >one that is >not obvious to the reader. Such a comma is written to separate syllables, >but indicates that >there must be no pause between them, in contrast to the period. Between >two vowels, a >comma indicates that some type of glide may be necessary to avoid a pause >that would >split the two syllables into separate words. It is always legal to use the >apostrophe (IPA >[K]) sound in pronouncing a comma. However, a comma cannot be pronounced >as a pause >or glottal stop between the two letters separated by the comma, because >that pronuncia-tion >would split the word into two words. That IPA letter in the Book is a lower case h. So I guess I was wrong and jbofi'e matches the baseline standard, and the word resolution algorithm needs to reflect this. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org