response to John Cowan on names

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

>> I don't intend to require every Lojbanist to become a master of the world's
>> phonologies, past and present.  So when in doubt relying on spelling is not
>> a bad idea for dealing with a name you don't know.  And recognizing that the
>> average Lojbanist will do that, the knowledgeable Lojbanist who is devising
>> a Lojban name based on multiple 'legitimate' pronunciations, probably should
>> choose the one that will match most closely with what the unknowledgeable
>> Lojbanist will choose - after all, they might end up talking to each other %^)
>
>This is related to And's point.  A name means what the speaker wants it
>to mean.But equally, as Mark says, you can't just make these things up
>and be understood.  Several people assumed that Pierre, N.D. was
>"pi,er.", but it's "pir."

Yes, but if you DID say "pi,er", even a native would probably
understand, whereas using the "correct" form might actual *reduce*
understand if talking to someone who doesn't know the idiosyncracies of
local pronunciation.  In written Lojban, matching a pronuciation that
has no resemblence to spelling will probably mean that many won't figure
it out.  So some alternative that is spelling-cogniscent is worth
considering as an alternative 'less-preferred' Lojbanization.

And if I as a Lojbanist, am using a name on the fly, I will wing it as
best I can, and I'm SURE I won't remember that variation on Pierre, SD.
It is worth putting in the dictionary as a "correct" form, but I daresay
that if anyone writes in Lojban text and mentions Pierre SD, and does
NOT check the dictionary, the result will likely be the average
American's interpretation of this as a first name.

We gotta be realistic in doing this John. la pir. is fine for
prescription, but let us not fool ourselves into thing that a dictionary
will suffice as a prescriptive standard once usage starts building.

lojbab