London and Laibach.

[Julian Pardoe <cbmvax!uunet!CIX.COMPULINK.CO.UK!jbdp>]

Mark says (with regard to {la laibax.}):

> Not quite.  It's the syllables {la}, {lai}, or {doi}.  So {lai-} blows it
> anyway.

Oh, I didn't know about {lai}.  But {la lauzits.} would be OK?

> So, incidentally, does a trick Nick has occasionally used, of replacing {la}
> syllables with {la'a}.  So far as I know, although the name can't start with
> {'a}, the syllable {la} is still illegal.

I have an ambiguous view of {a'a}-type syllables.  For pronunciation I def-
initely treat them as two syllables, e.g. I say {jdikyRI'a} not {JDIkyri'a},
but from a morpohological(?) point of view I'm inclined to treat them as
single syllable, because of the restricted distribution of {'} and because
that's how they appear to function in cmavo.  So part of me wants to say that
Nick's trick is OK for the same reasons that {la lauzits.} is OK: {la'a} is
not the two syllables {la,'a} (just as {lau} is not {la,u}) but the single
syllable {la'a} and so there can be no conflict with the syllable {la}.  (Of
course, pragmatically there may be a conflict, but (according to my argument)
we need a separate rule to cover this case.)

Mark says:

> For me, I've never heard anyone who really says {lndn}.  Here where I live,
> the closest pronunciation is probably {LYndn} or maybe {LYndyn}, and that's
> pretty much what I've heard from native speakers from the area as well,
> though theirs is closer to {*landn}, which is a no-no, because of the
> {la-}.

In my accent (pretty much "unmarked RP" ("degenerate RP" if you ask my
father!)) the two vowel sounds in the word "butter" are quite distinct in
quality.  (The phonetic transliteration scheme used in an American dictionary
I was browsing through last year suggested that in the US the distinction is
purely one of length.  I found this a little unconvincing; it certainly
didn't seem to be true of my host, but then she had an English father.)  Most
dictionaries of English English use the IPA inverted lower-case v for this
"short u" sound.  (It suggests a barless small caps "A".)

Ivan says:

> I map the six Lojban vowels to the six stressed Bulgarian vowels, and I
> definitely don't hear my {a} in "London".  What I hear is {lyndn.}.

My presumed Lojban accent would I guess use the same vowels as my Esperanto
accent.  This has been described as "Polish", which I take to be a
compliment.  (Most English Esperantists, even experienced ones, have
cringe-ri'a accents!)  It's hard to be sure, but I'd say that the "a" I use
(except in stressed open syllables) is closer to the English "short u" sound
than to any other -- and vice versa (even taking {y} into account).

> Julian: I'd accept {london} though, because that fits in with the way I
> think names should be done.

> Ivan: Well, I would pronounce very much unlike I pronounce "London" in
> English - and I think I do that correctly.

> Mark: {london} doesn't really sound too far off to me,

Given that {landn} doesn't work, I vote for {londn}/{londyn} or {london}
but because they *do* sound far off to me, at least "sufficiently far off".
{landn} sounds like a slightly bodged "London"; {lndn} sounds like a
seriously way-off-course "London" -- and because of that it grates on my ear
terribly.  {londn} etc. sound like "clean foreign pronunciations" and don't
offend me nearly as much.

-- la djuliyn. --