Re: Lojban Phonology

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!ucleaar>]

LEVY%LENNY@EDU.YALE.YCC.VENUS wrote about a month ago:

> Why is it that Lojban has so many consonant clusters?  The general form
> of polysyllablic words (especially selbri) seems to be CVCCV.  This is
> especially surprising to me, since (1) There have been repeated references
> to Lojban as a "vowel-rich" language, (2) There was some mention of the
> language moving toward syllable timing, which would be unusual in a language
> with so many syllable-final consonants (syllable-timed languages tend to
> favor open syllables), and (3) If one wants to use Lojban for spoken
> communication with computers (one of my main interests), having syllable-
> final consonants only makes things difficult.

As I have pointed out before, without incurring dissent or contradiction
from the gurus, Lojban is in fact a CV language.

According to the current phonological analysis of Lojban, it is permissible
to insert The Buffer Vowel into the phonological string, as long as it is
not inserted such that it is adjacent to a vowel (/i e a o u y/). (I would
count /./ as a consonant - realization = glottal stop.)

Another way of looking at this is to say that Buffer Vowel slots are
already present on the skeletal tier. These slots may be left empty or
filled with the buffer vowel. So, _mlatu_, for instance, looks like this:

     C V C V C V
     |   | | | |
     m   l a t u

The empty V can be filled with the buffer vowel or left empty.

Consequently, Lojban has a syllable structure no more complex than the
simplest syllable structure attested in natural language (i.e. no language
lacks CV syllables, but some languages have nothing but CV syllables).

Lojban is to be commended for the simplicity of its syllable structure,
but not, alas, for the phonology of its buffer vowel. The buffer vowel
is defined as "any vowel that isn't /a e i o u y/ in the accent of the
speaker". Therefore, your buffer vowel may be located in the vowel space
I assign to a e i o u or y. John Cowan, for example, uses [I] for his
buffer vowel, which would fall into my /i/ space. So if he said
[mIlatu] I'd hear /milatu/.
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
In-Reply-To:  CJ FINE's message of Tue, 28 Jan 1992 11:41:27 GMT
Status: RO

   Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 1992 11:41:27 GMT
   From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine%BRADFORD.AC.UK@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>

Very, very cool, Colin.  I don't have the time at the moment to make many
comments, so I'll just point out one or two things.  I found your usage
*very* complex, which is not a bad thing; it's high time we really worked
with the complexity that Lojban permits.  I'll leave that to Nick, stylist
at large.


   di'e te fanva le pemci befila ralf rautn beime'elu
   do jundi je'upei mi

might "do jundi xu mi" get it across more smoothly?

   ni'o
   mi cpedu da'i lenu ko tinju'i mi

Herein lieth a big question.  I think this is similar to the "ta djuno
ledu'u zo'ekau co'esa'ali'o" question (which was whether the "kau" in the
preceding sentence refered to "ta" or the speaker).  Basically, we are told
that "ko" signals a request/command that the audience make true the
statement which has "do" replaced for "ko".  By that logic, I'd have to
translate this sentence as "Be such that I request (suppose) that you
listen to me!" or, colloquially, something along the lines of "be such a
good listener that I ask you to listen to me" (this puts more in than is
there and ignores the "da'i", but you see the point).  Unless I see lu/li'u
quotes, I think I'd just throw that "do" in for the "ko" and take that as
what I'm supposed to do.  I'd do "mi cpedu da'i lenu do tinju'i mi", taking
the imperative pro-sumti out.  How does this square with you all?

   .i ko tinju'i .e'ori'e
   .i piroleimi selcpe cu nu ko tinju'i gi'enai tavla gi'enai gasnu gi'e tirna
           .e'ocai

Good!  Good to use "nu" someplace else that "lenu"!

   .i lei selti'i cu nalkargu .isu'anai li piremu jdima lonu danfu
   falepe'a seldunku rirme'i po'a pelo ta'urkarni
   the-mass suggestions are non-costly in-particular .25 is-the-price-of
   the-event answer by-the-figurative {anguish parent-sister}
   associated-with-the city-journal

Would {piremu rupnu cu jdima} or {remu fepni cu jdima} be better?  I'm
uneasy about using this base numerical sumti there.  Your translation of
the advice columnist is confusing, but at least it's got pe'a/po'a around
it.  Maybe using "la" or something?  I dunno.


   .i mi ka'e kurji .iari'e mi .i mi na'e ckaji loka nalkakne
   .i ja'a go'i la'a loka no'e pacna .i'a .a loka no'e ranji .i'a
   .iku'i no lo romei ka nalkakne

Really confusing, but sensible when compared to the English.  Confusion
isn't really such a bad thing; it's just the result of your usage of the
language in a particularly interesting fashion (in this case, anyway).

   .i ku'i ca'olemu'e do selbanzu lenu fatci faleza'i mi cinmo lemi
   se cinmo kei .u lonu ri to'e logji keikei .ua mi co'i troci lenu
   do tugni kei gi'e co'a troci lenu mi jimpe lei rinka belo nalrlogji selci'o
   .i fila'edi'u ge frili falenu zo'e co'u nabmi gi na nitcu fami lo selstidi

This one twisted my synapses.  I have to stare at it some more.

   .i lei nalrlogji selci'o cu binxo le se jimpe lemu'e se jimpe falo
   rinka bevo'a

The usual way to do lujvo would give you "nalylogji".  Is "nalrlogji"
incorrect, or just non-standard?


~mark