Place names

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!cogsci.ed.ac.uk!iad>]

>  Date:        Fri, 13 Mar 1992 19:31:37 +0000
>  From: And Rosta <ucleaar@UCL>
>
>  I reckon the Lojbanized names should (sometimes) use original spelling,
>  where original spelling is in roman alphabet.

This implies different treatment of names coming from languages using
Roman script and names coming from languages using some other script
or having no writing system.  I can't accept the idea that the way
Lojban sounds is to be allowed to depend on the fact that we use a
Roman-based script for it, which I view as a totally arbitrary choice.
I want Lojban to make just as much sense if it is transcribed into
another (say, Cyrillic-based) script.

>  After all, /lndn/ distorts both
>  spelling and pronuciation, whereas /london/ distorts only pronunciation.

Equally, the Spanish "z" and pre-front "c" (an interdental fricative)
and the Swedish "y" (a front rounded vowel) would have be lojbanised
as {z}, {c} and {y} respectively, so that spelling would be preserved.
Pronounciation would have to be distorted anyway, as the corresponding
sounds don't exist in Lojban.

Ivan