From pycyn@aol.com Thu Aug 16 12:51:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 16 Aug 2001 19:51:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 4821 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 19:51:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2001 19:51:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2001 19:51:13 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.3.) id r.59.ebe4023 (16641) for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <59.ebe4023.28ad7e2f@aol.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:51:11 EDT Subject: Toward the semi-annual attempt to get a Record on names To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_59.ebe4023.28ad7e2f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_59.ebe4023.28ad7e2f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. As far as Lojbandizing your own name, anything goes, including not only what name you Lojbandize but how you choose to do it: translate or transliterate, and how you do the latter. Pick something you like and can explain if asked. 2. For names of other people and places, the basic rule is to go with the native speakers' presentation, if there are any native speakers available. A. If there are no native speakers, then follow the descendant language with the best claim to descent or the written tradition. i. The written tradition can follow the written form (assuming some uniform way of getting to the Roman alphabet), dealing with anomalies (illegal VV or CC and diacritics) in some conventional way (no conventions presently exist in any firm form, so make your own for most languages, then wrassle them out with others who have a feeling for that language). ii. Or the written tradition can follow some traditional pronunciation. This fairly often comes down to following either the best descendant langauge or trusting some scholars. On the whole following the scholars seems safest, since they offend no one specially (i.e., all about equally). iii. The "best claim of descent route" always leads to problems if there is more than one contender, so should be avoided unless there is a good reason tos elect one, e.g., a national hero of a country speaking A whose records were nonetheless in ancient language B: use A's version of B. B. As is painfully often the case these days, there may be more than one "native speaker" version, especially for place names (though not exclusively), for the object in question may be in the culture of two or more language groups in the same area (mentioning no name), and none of them so obviously dominant as to make a clear claim on the naming. This may be time for "international usage," if there is one and it is not too obviously one of the contending groups (fat chance). It may also be possible to hit a compromise in the process of adapting various versions to Lojban, one that is not obviously from one language or another, but a muddle in the middle somewhere (Lojban's limited phonic resources can be an advantage). 3. Having hit upon a version to use for the Lojban name, there is now the question of just how to represent this version. Of course, it may happen that you are working with a language that is just like Lojban phonically and so you just write the name in Lojban. But usually the original language and Lojban differ in many ways. Some features, like tone and length, we simply have to drop (unless it is embarassing not to, then a convention must be devised -- but these are probably not different in principle from other conventions -- see later). For others, we have to decide what to do. A. We write it the way it sounds to us (well, officially the way it would sound to a native monolingual Lojban speaker, but we fake it as best we can). So, for example, English /th/ are /f/ and /v/ or /s/ and /z/ or /t/ and /d/, depending on our ear or whatever else influences our perception (often how other languages we know -- including non-standard dialects -- do it). B. We work with the spelling as much as possible: /th/ is spelled with a /t/ so we use /t/ for it, for example. Since lojban is still largely a written language, this makes things look familiar, even when they sound strange (she SHARE own may not sound familiar by ciceron, looks better than kIkeron -- which, come to think of it, doesn't sound that good either) C. Assuming we have a good phonemic analysis of the original language (yeah, right), we may try to match that analysis with similar contrasts in Lojban, even when these cut across Lojban phonemes. Thus, as noted recently, the Japanese phi ("candle blowing sound" as the IPA Handbook had it) before u, patterns with /h/ (Lojban /x/ befoe /i/), so might meaningfully be written as /xu/ (the the Chinese final /n/~/ng/ as /m/~/n/ is another example). The problem here is whether the phonemic analysis is a reality to the native speakers who might recognize the convention. Both the examples given seem to work, but several others for chinese at least do not. D. The biggest problem seems always to be vowels. Lojban's 6 align nicely with the European ones in stressed syllables and then get left behind in the details. They offer no help for umlauts or their opposites (which must have a good German name) and are generally weak both up the center and along the bottom of the vowel positions (is the vowel of bleating "Kansas" an /a/ -- by spelling -- or an /e/ ). For vowel harmony languages, there is a temptation (based on the phonemics above) to separate out the components of the harmony rules -- and a competing temptation to ignore the harmony altogether in the interest of fitting the sounds in. In the end, the answer to "How do I Lojbanize this word?" seems to be "What is the most pleasing sounding word I can come up with a justification for good enough to beat down most of the informed opposition?" --part1_59.ebe4023.28ad7e2f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1.  As far as Lojbandizing your own name, anything goes, including not only
what name you Lojbandize but how you choose to do it: translate or
transliterate, and how you do the latter.  Pick something you like and can
explain if asked.

2.  For names of other people and places, the basic rule is to go with the
native speakers' presentation, if there are any native speakers available.
      A.  If there are no native speakers, then follow the descendant
language with the best claim to descent or the written tradition.
            i.  The written tradition can follow the written form (assuming
some uniform way of getting to the Roman alphabet), dealing with anomalies
(illegal VV or CC and diacritics) in some conventional way (no conventions
presently exist in any firm form, so make your own for most languages, then
wrassle them out with others who have a feeling for that language).
            ii.  Or the written tradition can follow some traditional
pronunciation.  This fairly often comes down to following either the best
descendant langauge or trusting some scholars.  On the whole following the
scholars seems safest, since they offend no one specially (i.e., all about
equally).
            iii.  The "best claim of descent route" always leads to problems
if there is more than one contender, so should be avoided unless there is a
good reason tos elect one, e.g., a national hero of a country speaking A
whose records were nonetheless in ancient language B: use A's version of B.

      B.  As is painfully often the case these days, there may be more than
one "native speaker" version, especially for place names (though not
exclusively), for the object in question may be in the culture of two or more
language groups in the same area (mentioning no name), and none of them so
obviously dominant as to make a clear claim on the naming.  This may be time
for "international usage," if there is one and it is not too obviously one of
the contending groups (fat chance).  It may also be possible to hit a
compromise in the process of adapting various versions to Lojban, one that is
not obviously from one language or another, but a muddle in the middle
somewhere (Lojban's limited phonic resources can be an advantage).  

3.  Having hit upon a version to use for the Lojban name, there is now the
question of just how to represent this version.  Of course, it may happen
that you are working with a language that is just like Lojban phonically and
so you just write the name in Lojban.  But usually the original language and
Lojban differ in many ways.  Some features, like tone and length, we simply
have to drop (unless it is embarassing not to, then a convention must be
devised -- but these are probably not different in principle from other
conventions -- see later).  For others, we have to decide what to do.
      A.  We write it the way it sounds to us (well, officially the way it
would sound to a native monolingual Lojban speaker, but we fake it as best we
can).  So, for example, English /th/ are /f/ and /v/ or /s/ and /z/ or /t/
and /d/, depending on our ear or whatever else influences our perception
(often how other languages we know -- including non-standard dialects -- do
it).  
      B.  We work with the spelling as much as possible: /th/ is spelled
with a /t/ so we use /t/ for it, for example.  Since lojban is still largely
a written language, this makes things look familiar, even when they sound
strange (she SHARE own may not sound familiar by ciceron, looks better than
kIkeron -- which, come to think of it, doesn't sound that good either)
      C.  Assuming we have a good phonemic analysis of the original language
(yeah, right), we may try to match that analysis with similar contrasts in
Lojban, even when these cut across Lojban phonemes.  Thus, as noted recently,
the Japanese phi ("candle blowing sound" as the IPA Handbook had it) before
u, patterns with /h/ (Lojban /x/ befoe /i/), so might meaningfully be written
as /xu/ (the the Chinese final /n/~/ng/ as /m/~/n/ is another example).  The
problem here is whether the phonemic analysis is a reality to the native
speakers who might recognize the convention.  Both the examples given seem to
work, but several others for chinese at least do not.
      D.  The biggest problem seems always to be vowels.  Lojban's 6 align
nicely with the European ones in stressed syllables and then get left behind
in the details.  They offer no help for umlauts or their opposites (which
must have a good German name) and are generally weak both up the center and
along the bottom of the vowel positions (is the vowel of bleating "Kansas" an
/a/ -- by spelling -- or an /e/ ).  For vowel harmony languages, there is a
temptation (based on the phonemics above) to separate out the components of
the harmony rules -- and a competing temptation to ignore the harmony
altogether in the interest of fitting the sounds in.

In the end, the answer to "How do I Lojbanize this word?" seems to be "What
is the most pleasing sounding word I can come up with a justification for
good enough to beat down most of the informed opposition?"    --part1_59.ebe4023.28ad7e2f_boundary--