Re: Place names

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!ucl.ac.uk!ucleaar>]

Ivan:
> >  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.

Perhaps, then, there should be a conventional cyrillic transliteration
of lojban, & so on for other alphabets.

It cannot be easy to view the choice of romic script as a totally
arbitrary choice. Principled reasons for the choice are easy to
imagine to have applied.

> >  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.

So you agree with me?

---
And