Place names

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!iad>]

Here we have Nick, a serious fellow Lojbanist, engaging in an activity
which is ridiculous if not silly, and in any case ungrateful.  Flames
follow, but just for a start:  Nick, before you started lojbanising
names from all kinds of languages, did it occur to you to take the IPA
chart and to make a big decision about which area will be covered by
which Lojban phoneme (or stack thereof, or lack thereof)?  If so, how
did it happen that the first vowel in _O"sterreich_ and the first
vowel in _Tu"rkiye_ were lojbanised as {e} and {u}, respectively,
given that they only differ in height, not frontness or roundedness?

>  Date:        Mon, 9 Mar 1992 18:33:34 +1000
>  From: nsn@AU.OZ.MU.EE.MULLIAN
>
>  >>  ckiper - ckiperia *or* albania - albanias: la tiranas

By the way, the country's name is _Shqipe"ri_ (stressed on the final
syllable), so your lojbanisation is wrong thrice: (1) the final {a} is
bogus, (2) the penultimate vowel is {y} not {e}, and (3) the second
consonant is a palatal stop, for the lojbanisation of which I see {k},
{t} and {tc} (+ glidified {i}) as equally eligible candidates.

>  >_Albania_ is not the Albanian name for Albania.  It shouldn't be used.
>
>  Well, um, how do I put this... I don't 100% buy the "as pronounced/named
>  by the natives" argument.

Because the natives are not really human, unless they speak English or
at least are mentioned in the gismu list, right?  This attitude is
called cultural imperialism, neither more nor less.  I suggest that it
be kept out of Lojban as much as possible.  It is already present
there to a certain degree.

>  But definitively {london} over
>  {lndn} (actually, this'd make a really good debate; I seem to remember
>  Colin (or was it And?) already being on the side on {london}.

I'm on the side of {lndn}.  I'm not a native, but I know it for a fact
that the natives don't call it "Lawn Dawn".

>  >>  xelvetik - xelvetia: la bern, la jenev
>  >Um, this is the country's name in a _dead_ language.
>
>  Well, it *is* what appears on the stamps :)

And on the money.  Weak reason.  By the way, by what standard is /h/
closer to /x/ (ie {x}) than it is to zero?

>  And what motivates one's
>  choice between {cvaits},{suis} and {svitserias}  when talking about the
>  political entity as distinct from ethnography?

What motivates the choice between the French and the Flemish name of
Belgium?  You included both of them, didn't you?

>  I'm not saying {xelvetia} is the answer; I'm saying there's a problem.

Of course there is.  I raised this question a few weeks ago, remember?
We found no reasonable answer.  I've observed since that my enthusiasm
for making Lojban names has gone down to naught.

>  >>  magiar - magiara: la budapect
>  >Make that {madiar}.  It's closer.
>
>  hey, is that a palatal stop (Upside-down f in IPA)?

Yes.  The one in _Shqipe"ri_ is IPA /c/, the unvoiced counterpart.

>  >>  (I really wouldn't favour naidjirias)
>  >Why?  English is the official language.
>
>  Hm. Yes, but there's the small matter of {naidjirias} not being very
>  recognisable in script.

What does it matter?  You know very well that what is lojbanised is
the pronounciation, not the spelling.  Otherwise you'll have to handle
all other names in the same way.

>  Having gotten your attention, Ivan :),

Just make sure you really want to keep it on this issue.  I will
respond now, but in general I refuse to take part in this activity.

>  xrvatska - xrvatsk: la zagreb
>  srpski - ?: la BE,ograd.

The country is called _Srbija_.  _Srpski_ is the relational adjective.

>  slovenia - slovenias: la liublianas (someone say la laibax? :)

What on earth is {laibax}?  It is not even a cmene (you can't have
{la} inside, except after a consonant, right?)

>  makedoni,a - makedonias: la skopies
>  (skopies - skopies: la skopies, if you allow the Greeks to name it :-1/2)

No, I do NOT allow the Greeks to name anything except themselves.  See
my articles on sci.lang and soc.culture.greek about that.

>  tcexoslovensk - tcexoslovenska:

{tcEskoslovensko}.

>  la pra'as, la bratislavas, la brnos.

So /h/ becomes a velar fricative, while its voiced counterpart becomes
a near zero?  Are you serious?

>  xajistan - xajistana: la .erevan

{xa,iistAn}.

>  belorus - belorusa: la minsk

{belarUs}.

>  rumania - rumanias:

Nonsense.  It is _Romania_, where _a_ is the back counterpart of
{i} alias the unrounded counterpart of {u}.  Make it {y}.

>  la buxarest

Nonsense again.  It is _Bucures,ti_, ie {bUkurect}.

>  rusko - la moskvas. (Please, god, not mozgvas or moskfas!),

Not that, but the {o} is wrong.  It is {myskvA}.

>  la sanktpetersburg

Take that {s} away.  (I mean the second one.)  Also, the final
consonant is {k}, not {g}.

>  (which *will* fail in Lojban phonology), la novosibirsk

{nyvysibIrsk}.

Ivan