From cowan@ccil.org Sat Aug 04 19:15:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 02:15:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 89540 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 02:15:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 02:15:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 02:15:10 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15TDRa-0008C9-00; Sat, 04 Aug 2001 22:15:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Transliterations survey In-Reply-To: from Arnt Richard Johansen at "Aug 4, 2001 07:10:58 pm" To: Arnt Richard Johansen Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 22:15:06 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: > To me, all of them are unacceptable. The palatal fricative in "M=FCnchen" > sounds closer to "c" than to "x". I agree. > It is more difficult to decide whether > we want to retract the close-central vowel ("=FC") to Lojban /u/, or adva= nce > it to /i/. I'd say we go for "u", as it parallels the orthographic > appearance of the original name. Thus: "muncen.". The theory is that Lojban vowels are unmarked as to roundedness, so "ue" is "i" and "oe" is "e" (which many German dialects also do); Japanese "u" is Lojban "u". Personally I pronounce Lojban u, o, and y rounded and i, e, and a unrounded= , but a look at the Book will show that (un)roundedness is not mentioned in any of the phoneme descriptions. --=20 John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter