Place names

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!iad>]

>  Date:        Mon, 16 Mar 1992 13:26:49 +0000
>  From: And Rosta <ucleaar@UCL>
>
>  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.
>  >
>  > <...>  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.

Or even it is not.  When you see a lojbanised name, you should have
the right to expect that it follows the pronounciation as closely as
possible.  If this turns out not to be the case, you won't be very
likely to accept as satisfactory the rationalisation that it follows
the original spelling, especially if it is something you neither know
nor care for.

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

For Cyrillic no convention is really needed, as the set of phonemes of
Lojban is a subset of the set of the values of the Old Slavic letters
which survive in the modern Cyrillic founts, and the languages using
the Cyrillic script almost unanimously agree on the use of those
letters, with Bulgarian being the closest.  The mapping onto the
Russian alphabet is "abvgdejzi-klmnoprstufx--c-y-----", with hyphens
indicating the letters which are not needed for Lojban.

>  It cannot be easy to view the choice of romic script as a totally
>  arbitrary choice.

It is perfectly easy for me.

>  Principled reasons for the choice are easy to imagine to have applied.

I can't imagine what reasons could have made it impossible for some
other script to have been chosen.

>  > >  After all, /lndn/ distorts both spelling and pronuciation,
>  > > whereas /london/ distorts only pronunciation.
>  >
>  > Equally, the Spanish "z" <...> would have [to] be lojbanised
>  > as {z} <...>, 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?

On the contrary, I disagree.  I would prefer to lojbanise the
Spanish "z" and soft "c" as {s}, not as {z} and {c}, although this
distorts both spelling and pronounciation.

Ivan