SE + x2-less brivla: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


Guida alla pronuncia Lojban per Italiani
If 'broda' has only an x1 and no x2, what does ''se broda'' mean?


'''*** Vocali ***'''
* se broda just means that there has been a reordering of places. If something fills the x1 of se broda, there is a big semantical problem. [[jbocre: .greg.|greg.]] used se broda in [[jbocre: se zasti lo ninmu poi cisma|se zasti lo ninmu poi cisma]]. I thought when I wrote it that zasti had only an x1, but I still feel that the sentence was correct in my original intension. Just like I believe {se blanu ta} is an equally correct form of {ta blanu}
** This makes sense, but you could also have said ''zasti fa'', so although the proposed convention would invalidate your usage, it wouldn't deny you the ability to postpose x1. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]


'''a''' '''a'''cqu'''a''', '''a'''m'''a'''re
[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] propose that it denote a predicate that is semantically related to 'broda' but has an x2. The meaning would be tanru-like in that it would be established from context, but ''selbroda'' would have a fixed meaning that, once established, could be listed in a dictionary.


'''e''' '''e'''n'''e'''rgia
*I believe that ''selbroda'' could mean something, but I would not expect to have to find a meaning for ''ta se broda''


'''i''' '''i'''deolog'''i'''a
I further propose that ''broda fe ko'a'' work similarly, where 'broda' lacks an x2.


'''o'''  '''o'''ss'''o''', '''o'''n'''o'''re
Needless to say, ''te broda'' would force reconstrual as a 3-place predicate, ''xe broda'' as a 5-place, and so forth.


'''u'''  '''u'''no, '''u'''guale, d'''u'''bbio
* Blah. Overcomplex. If you stick something in a non-existant place, expect to get well deserved blank stares.


'''y'''  femm'''e'''ne, campaniell'''o''', Napul'''e''', chiagn'''e''' (Napoletano). Suono vocalico indistinto come al termine della parola inglese ''the'' o francese ''petit''.
** If you use ''za'e'' first, at least your hearers will know some monkey business is afoot.


'''*** Dittonghi ***'''
* An example from usage: [[jbocre: da pu laldo ninmu co tunlo le sfani|da pu laldo ninmu co tunlo le sfani]]


'''ai''' giamm'''ai''', d'''ai'''
* What prompted this proposal was Jorge's preference for ''se ka'' over ''[[jbocre: poi'i|poi'i]]''. Adding an x2 to ordinary ''ka'' would be a Bad Thing, unless x2-less ''ka'' were replaced by ''du'u''. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
** ''x2-less ka is du'u, assuming there are su'o zo ce'u. The suggested ka2 was for something that can fit in the single ce'u of the ka bridi. (I don't believe it was ever defined for ka with multiple ce'u.) It's not really that useful except to ease the transition of those who liked the idea of ka without any ce'u, into the modern, purified usage. --[[User:xod|xod]]''


'''au'''  '''au'''torizzare, '''au'''mentare
** Yes: on the semantic equivalence of ''ka'' and ''du'u'' but the interpretive distinction, see [[jbocre: ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e|ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e]], which was a summary of the consensus we (including you) reached. I don't remember the ka2 you're talking about, but I think it is different from the ''se ka'' that would replace ''[[jbocre: poi'i|poi'i]]'', since this ''se ka'' is just ordinary ''ka'' with an added place for the thing that has the property: "ko'a se ka ce'u broda" = "ko'a se ckaji lo'e ka ce'u broda". --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
 
'''ei'''  s'''ei''', l'''ei'''
 
'''oi'''  p'''oi''', gli er'''oi'''
 
'''ia'''  p'''ia'''no, p'''ia'''zza, p'''ia'''cere
 
'''ie'''  '''ie'''ri, p'''ie'''tro, c'''ie'''co
 
'''ii'''  magn'''i'''fico, ogn'''i'''
 
'''io'''  p'''io'''ggia, p'''io'''mbo
 
'''iu'''  p'''iu'''ttosto
 
'''ua'''  q'''ua'''ttro, q'''ua'''lità
 
'''ue'''  q'''ue'''sto
 
'''ui'''  "(io) f'''ui'''"
 
'''uo'''  '''uo'''mo, c'''uo'''re, "p'''uò''' darsi"
 
'''uu'''  suono '''u''' prolungato
 
'''*** Consonanti ***'''
 
'''b''' '''b'''asso, '''b'''am'''b'''ino, '''b'''a'''bb'''o
 
'''c'''  '''sc'''immia, la'''sc'''iare, a'''sc'''iugamano,
 
'''d'''  '''d'''entro, an'''d'''are
 
'''f'''  '''f'''anciulla, so'''ff'''ocare
 
'''g'''  '''g'''atto, pa'''g'''are
 
'''j'''  la '''g''' dolce intervocalica in Toscano. Come il Francese ''bon'''j'''our'' o l'inglese ''mea'''s'''ure''
 
'''k'''  '''k'''ilometro, '''c'''avallo, '''ch'''ia'''cch'''ierare
 
'''l'''  '''l'''una, pa'''ll'''ido
 
'''m'''  '''m'''ano, a'''m'''ore
 
'''n'''  '''n'''o'''nn'''o, '''n'''otizia
 
'''p'''  '''p'''asqua, o'''pp'''ure,
 
'''r'''  '''r'''idere, '''r'''ing'''r'''azia'''r'''e
 
'''s'''  '''s'''apienza, '''s'''olitudine
 
'''t'''  '''t'''orre, studen'''t'''e
 
'''v'''  '''v'''erità, ne'''v'''icare,
 
'''x'''  la '''c''' dura intervocalica in Toscano. Aspirata come in "Ba'''ch'''" o "Lo'''ch''' Ness"
 
'''z'''  a'''z'''ienda, ro'''zz'''a, '''z'''otico ('''z''' sorda, non sonora come in '''z'''aino o a'''z'''oto)
 
'''''''  breve aspirazione tra due vocali. La '''h''' inglese in '''h'''otel.
 
mi'e [[jbocre: .aulun.|.aulun.]]
 
''Re "without the plosive"... I thought the intention was that if a language hasn't got a certain sound, to leave it out rather than providing one which is similar but "wrong". Italians have to distinguish between '''dj''' and '''j''', and between '''dz''' and '''z'''; if their language misleads them to pronounce '''j''' as '''dj''' because of the examples {g}, then perhaps {g} is not a good example. mi'e [[jbocre: filip|filip]]''
 
filip, as far as I do understand the very purpose of these charts, they are to give foreign students of Lojban (without any further knowledge of other languages than their native tongue) an idea of Lojban phonology. If this is correct, it has to be preferred to give any hint possible to reach that goal, hasn't it? --[[jbocre: .aulun.|.aulun.]]
 
Page reformatted. Added some more example for the more difficult cases ('''j''','''x''',''''''','''y''') that have no correspondence to Italian sounds. Also redone '''z''' --[[jbocre: remod|remod]]

Revision as of 17:12, 4 November 2013

If 'broda' has only an x1 and no x2, what does se broda mean?

  • se broda just means that there has been a reordering of places. If something fills the x1 of se broda, there is a big semantical problem. greg. used se broda in se zasti lo ninmu poi cisma. I thought when I wrote it that zasti had only an x1, but I still feel that the sentence was correct in my original intension. Just like I believe {se blanu ta} is an equally correct form of {ta blanu}
    • This makes sense, but you could also have said zasti fa, so although the proposed convention would invalidate your usage, it wouldn't deny you the ability to postpose x1. --And Rosta

And Rosta propose that it denote a predicate that is semantically related to 'broda' but has an x2. The meaning would be tanru-like in that it would be established from context, but selbroda would have a fixed meaning that, once established, could be listed in a dictionary.

  • I believe that selbroda could mean something, but I would not expect to have to find a meaning for ta se broda

I further propose that broda fe ko'a work similarly, where 'broda' lacks an x2.

Needless to say, te broda would force reconstrual as a 3-place predicate, xe broda as a 5-place, and so forth.

  • Blah. Overcomplex. If you stick something in a non-existant place, expect to get well deserved blank stares.
    • If you use za'e first, at least your hearers will know some monkey business is afoot.
  • What prompted this proposal was Jorge's preference for se ka over poi'i. Adding an x2 to ordinary ka would be a Bad Thing, unless x2-less ka were replaced by du'u. --And Rosta
    • x2-less ka is du'u, assuming there are su'o zo ce'u. The suggested ka2 was for something that can fit in the single ce'u of the ka bridi. (I don't believe it was ever defined for ka with multiple ce'u.) It's not really that useful except to ease the transition of those who liked the idea of ka without any ce'u, into the modern, purified usage. --xod
    • Yes: on the semantic equivalence of ka and du'u but the interpretive distinction, see ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e, which was a summary of the consensus we (including you) reached. I don't remember the ka2 you're talking about, but I think it is different from the se ka that would replace poi'i, since this se ka is just ordinary ka with an added place for the thing that has the property: "ko'a se ka ce'u broda" = "ko'a se ckaji lo'e ka ce'u broda". --And Rosta