"New York"

["61510::GILSON" <cbmvax!uunet!CCF4.NRL.NAVY.MIL!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!gilson!61510.decnet>]

Lojbab writes:

>New York does not have an Old York nearby to be contrasted, and the
>listener may not know of the one in England, and can't find it on a
>typical map showing New York (the map must be in Lojban of course, or
>this wouldn't be an issue).  Meanwhile the locals will not recognize it
>in translation either - so nothing is gained.

A Bulgarian may know "ni,u.iork" while to a native the pronunciation is
either "nu.iork" (my pronunciattion, and I _am_ a native) or "nu.iok" for
those with non-rhotic dialects. Meanwhile, A hispanic knows it as "Nueva
York" anyway. I would say that if it is common to translate the name in
some languages, you should translate it into Lojban (hence the "New" of
New York and New Orleans, Prince Edward Island, etc.) If it is never
translated (like Los Angeles, Bethlehem, etc.) then simply Lojbanbize the
pronounciation.

That is _my_ opinion, though it may not count enough since I don't know
enough Lojban to satisfy Lojbab's belief that "a language belongs to those
who use it."