HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jardar@swix.ifi.unit.no (Jardar Eggesboe Abrahamsen)
Subject: Re: Esperanto pronounciation: n and j
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 12:33:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.230934.2778@polaris.utu.fi> moj@polaris.utu.fi (Matti Jokinen) writes:
>I have been wondering what was Zamenhof's idea of the pronounciation of
>`n' in `nk' and `ng' and `j' in `aj', `ej', `oj', `uj'.  Most books
>recommend that `nk' is pronounced as in `bank' and 'ng' as in `language',
>and that `aj', `ej', `oj' and `uj' are pronounced as diphtongs (meaning
>that `j' is more or less like the vowel `i' in these cases).  However,
>one source tells that the pronounciation of `n' remains unchanged in front
>of `k' or `g' (as in Russian).  It also seems logical to assume that since
>Zamenhof did not invent a separate letter for the diphtong-forming `i',
>as he did for `u', he may have intended `j' to be pronounced more like a
>consonant, perhaps analogous to the Russian `i s kratkoi'.
>
>- Matti Jokinen

In Esperanto there are two nazals: /m/ and /n/. The distinctive feature is
[+/- labial]. This means that what is important, is that /m/ is pronounced
with the lips closed, while /n/ is pronounced with the lips open. We can
lear /n/ pronounced in various ways, dependent on who talks and what other
sounds are near the /n/. This variation is so called "allophonic
variation", that means that it really isn't important how you pronounce
/n/. The "unchanged" pronunciation of Russian esperantists and the
"changed" (back, velar) pronuciation of e.g. Norwegians do not cause
seperate words/meanings. A similar phenomenon is the pronunciation of /k/
in the words _kiso_ and _kosto_, or in English _kiss_ and _cost_, where
the first is more in the front of the mouth than the second.

The /ux/ and /j/ are "glides", i.e. they are consonants that have a lot
common with the vowels, but still cannot be in the syllable nucleus.
Phonetically we call both /je/ and /ej/ diphtongs, but phonemically we
tend to call both of them _combination of consonant and vowel_.

So just keep pronouncing /ej/, /aj/ etc. like diphtongs.

The way Zamenhof wrote /ux/ and /j/ as opposed to /u/ and /i/ is only a
question of ortography. He could just as well have chosen "w" in stead of
the "u" with that funny little thing above.

I like these questions, they make me think!

(And once again: I'm sorry to have messed up the English language. I am
Norwegian.)
-- 
Jardar Eggesboe Abrahamsen            "Ili rigardis min kiel sian
jardar@swix.ifi.unit.no                moralan chefon."
                                                       (L.L. Zamenhof)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
From: higa@lclark.edu (Keith Higa)
Subject: Re: Esperanto spelling in ASCII
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:50:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.172649.15083@impmh.uucp> dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:
>In various postings, I have noticed several different ways of
>representing the non-ASCII characters of the Esperanto alphabet
>(these are just the ones I have seen recently):
>
>	^c	c^	ch	cx
>	^g		gh	gx
>		h^
>	^j	j^		jx
>	^s	s^	sh	sx
>	^u			ux
>
>I wondered whether there is any general consensus on which of
>these to use, which are most helpful/least confusing, etc.

Since there are two ways of using the circumflex, there would be ambiguity
if you had two letter that can use circumflexes next to each other, with the
circumflex in between.  Would the circumflex belong on the first letter or
the second?  So I would use some form of the other two, with following letters
rather than the circumflex.  I myself use the "cx" formation out of habit
from first reading the FAQ.

Cxar ekzistas du eblecoj por uzi la cirkumflekson, estus dusenca, se vi havus
du literojn kiuj povas havi cirkumflekson apud unu la alian, kun la cirkum-
flekso inter ili.  Cxu la cirkumflekso apartenas al la unua litero aux la
dua?  Do, mi uzus unu el la du aliaj, kun sekvantaj literoj anstataux la
cirkumflekso.  Mi mem uzas "cx" kutime, leginte la FAQ-on.

-- 
Keith K. Higa                         Lewis & Clark College    
higa@lclark.edu                       Portland, OR, USA
In a hierarchy each member tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence.
                                 --The Peter Principle
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
From: dwolff@cozy.Prime.COM (David Wolff)
Subject: Re: Esperanto spelling in ASCII
Organization: Computervision
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:06:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.172649.15083@impmh.uucp>, dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:
> In various postings, I have noticed several different ways of
> representing the non-ASCII characters of the Esperanto alphabet
> (these are just the ones I have seen recently):
> 
> 	^c	c^	ch	cx
> 	^g		gh	gx
> 		h^
> 	^j	j^		jx
> 	^s	s^	sh	sx
> 	^u			ux
> 
> I wondered whether there is any general consensus on which of
> these to use, which are most helpful/least confusing, etc.

Arrgghh!!  Flamewar predicted!

This comes up every few months on soc.culture.esperanto, in excruciating
detail, and no consensus has been found.  Some ways are better for computers
to sort, some are better for computers to translate into ISO-whosis, some
are easier for humans to read, some are easier for humans to write.

(By the way, you can fill in the missing entries in your table with the
obvious extrapolations.)

Do whatever you want...  but the *right* way is c^ (etc) and u~.  :-)

David Wolff

dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
WittyQuote:  Witty but very long saying condensed into a microdot: "."
Kibofodder:  wkx Kibo ood
From: duncan@spd.eee.strathclyde.ac.uk (Duncan C Thomson)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
Subject: Re: Esperanto spelling in ASCII
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:32:14 GMT
Organization: SPD, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland
Originator: duncan@newton

In alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc, dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:
>In various postings, I have noticed several different ways of
>representing the non-ASCII characters of the Esperanto alphabet
>(these are just the ones I have seen recently):
> . . .
>(Sorry, I was going to translate this into Esperanto, but
>I got stuck around "representing" - I'm only on chapter 7.
>Perhaps somebody can give me some hints, or translate the
>above so we can all see how it's done).

Cxu `tajpi' (to type)?  Memoru: Traduku la signifon ne la vortojn

What about `to type'?  Remember: Translate the meaning, not the words.

La *solaj* *gusxtaj* metodoj, por tajpi esperantajn literojn per _ASCII_ estas:

cx gx hx jx sx ux  AUX

^c ^g ^h ^j ^s ^u

:-)

	-Duncan

-- 
Duncan C THOMSON                            |  .__ _.._ .__._  _ , .___ _
         <duncan@spd.eee.strathclyde.ac.uk> |  |_ |_ |_||_ |_|/_\|\| | / \
SPD, Dept of EEE, University of Strathclyde |  |__._||  |__| \| || | | \_/
204 George Street, Glasgow G1 1XW, UK       | esperanto - lingvo internacia
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
From: moj@polaris.utu.fi (Matti Jokinen)
Subject: Esperanto pronounciation: n and j
Organization: University of Turku, Finland
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:09:34 GMT

I have been wondering what was Zamenhof's idea of the pronounciation of
`n' in `nk' and `ng' and `j' in `aj', `ej', `oj', `uj'.  Most books
recommend that `nk' is pronounced as in `bank' and 'ng' as in `language',
and that `aj', `ej', `oj' and `uj' are pronounced as diphtongs (meaning
that `j' is more or less like the vowel `i' in these cases).  However,
one source tells that the pronounciation of `n' remains unchanged in front
of `k' or `g' (as in Russian).  It also seems logical to assume that since
Zamenhof did not invent a separate letter for the diphtong-forming `i',
as he did for `u', he may have intended `j' to be pronounced more like a
consonant, perhaps analogous to the Russian `i s kratkoi'.

- Matti Jokinen
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
From: jardar@swix.ifi.unit.no (Jardar Eggesboe Abrahamsen)
Subject: Re: Esperanto pronounciation: n and j
Organization: Universitato de Trondheim, Norvegio
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 09:45:37 GMT

En artikolo <sg1l658@zola.esd.sgi.com> cigno@sgi.com (Kevin Walsh) skribis:
>       But I would like to add that it is important
>	not to get too caught up in how to properly pronounce something.
>	I know people who fear to speak because they are unsure of their
>	pronounciation.  This is a pity, because it is through trial
>	and error that one learns.
>
>	Also, provided that one is understood, I am of the opinion that 
>	what one says is more important that how one says it.  
>
>	BTW, what is the preferred language of this newsgroup?
>
>	Tamen, mi deziras ankau diri ke oni devas ne memsxnurigxi per kiel
>	jxuste elparoli ion.  Mi konas homoj kiuj timas paroli cxar ili 
>	ne certas pri elparolo.  Mi bedauras tion cxar mi kredas ke estas 
>	kaj per peno kaj per eraro ke oni lernas. 
>
>	Ankau, kondicxe ke oni estas komprenita, mi opinias ke kion oni 
>	diras estas pli grava ol kiel oni elparolas.  
>
>	Parenteze, kio estas la preferita lingvo de tiu cxi novajxgrupo?
>	

Zamenhof was once asked by a Dutch with a terrible Esperanto pronunciation
if his pronunciation was acceplable. Zamenhof asked: "Does one understand
you?" - "Yes." - "Then you speak good Esperanto."

Iam nederlandano kun terura Esperanta prononco demandis Zamenhof, chu tia
prononco estu permesata. Zamenhof redemandis: "Chu vi estas komprenata?" -
"Jes." - "Do, vi parolas bonan Esperanton."

Langauge? It is positive that people ask questions and get answers,
whether they be in Esperanto or another language.

Lingvo? Estas bone, ke homoj demandas kaj akiras respondojn, chu Esperante
chu alilingve.

-- 
Jardar Eggesboe Abrahamsen            "Ili rigardis min kiel sian
studanto pri lingvistiko               moralan chefon."
jardar@swix.ifi.unit.no                                (L.L. Zamenhof)
Xref: sparky alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc:68 soc.culture.esperanto:2098
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc,soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Re: rrrrrr (was Re: More on Esperanto pronounciation)
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:43:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Nov16.024322.17979
 <1992Nov10.184135.4237@news.columbia.edu> 
 <1992Nov10.220107.13628@ariel.ec.usf.edu>  
 <1992Nov15.175848.44807@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

That's almost exactly how my Russian prof taught me how to pronounce a
Russian 'r' -- so apparently an Esperanto 'r' is a lot like the Russian
one?  (Don't flame me if I'm wrong!)

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have realized it would be bad vodka when all the label said
was 'Russian Vodka'."
From: malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Fisher)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
Subject: Q: "Scii" Pronunciation
Date: 20 Nov 92 06:15:17 GMT
Reply-To: malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Fisher)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: malirath@pooh.cc.utexas.edu

Pli fru, iu menciis la vorton, "scii". Tiam, mi notis ke mi estis
prononcinta ghin, kvazaux ghi estis Latina. ("SKI-I") Mi ne povis
prononci la Esperanta "c" post "s". Chu iu ofertas tiel ke mi akirus
la ghusta prononcon?

[English:]
Earlier, someone mentioned the word, "scii". Then, I noted that I had
been pronouncing it as if it were Latin. ("skee-ee") I can't pronounce
the Esperanto "c" after "s". Can someone offer someway that I might
acquire the right pronunciation?

(Once again, I beg forgiveness and notice if my Esperanto is rather
rough. I'm especially unsure about my subordinate clauses and compound
tenses.)
-- 
		===========================================
		Robert Fisher / malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
		===========================================
Xref: sparky alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc:85 soc.culture.esperanto:2119
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc,soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: ^Sako
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:27:59 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Does anybody out there know the Esperanto words for chess terms? 
Specifically, I'd like to know the names of the pieces in Esperanto,
and other commonly used terms in chess such as castling, check, mate,
opening, etc.  You can either post the terms or email them directly to
me.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have realized it would be bad vodka when all the label said
was 'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Esperanto spelling in ASCII
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:26:49 GMT

In various postings, I have noticed several different ways of
representing the non-ASCII characters of the Esperanto alphabet
(these are just the ones I have seen recently):

	^c	c^	ch	cx
	^g		gh	gx
		h^
	^j	j^		jx
	^s	s^	sh	sx
	^u			ux

I wondered whether there is any general consensus on which of
these to use, which are most helpful/least confusing, etc.

(Sorry, I was going to translate this into Esperanto, but
I got stuck around "representing" - I'm only on chapter 7.
Perhaps somebody can give me some hints, or translate the
above so we can all see how it's done).
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
From: higa@lclark.edu (Keith Higa)
Subject: Re: Q: "Scii" Pronunciation
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:37:49 GMT

In article <84036@ut-emx.uucp> malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Fisher) writes:
>[English:]
>Earlier, someone mentioned the word, "scii". Then, I noted that I had
>been pronouncing it as if it were Latin. ("skee-ee") I can't pronounce
>the Esperanto "c" after "s". Can someone offer someway that I might
>acquire the right pronunciation?

Diru la anglan vorton "bestseller."  Nun, provu diri la "sts".  Jen la
sono de Esperanta "sc."  Do, por diri "Mi ne scias," diru "Me nest see ass." 

Say the English word "bestseller."  Now try to say the "sts."  That's the
sound of the Esperanto "sc."  So to say "Mi ne scias," say "Me nest see ass."


-- 
Keith K. Higa                         Lewis & Clark College    
higa@lclark.edu                       Portland, OR, USA
In a hierarchy each member tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence.
                                 --The Peter Principle
Xref: sparky alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc:67 soc.culture.esperanto:2097
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc,soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Re: rrrrrr (was Re: More on Esperanto pronounciation)
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:58:47 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Nov10.220107.13628@ariel.ec.usf.edu>, pollock@eggo.tmc.edu (Wayne Pollock) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.184135.4237@news.columbia.edu> pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Jelenc) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.173103.4036@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>>>1. How exactly is the 'r' supposed to be pronounced?  As in American
>>>English, with no trill, or as in most European languages, with a roll? 
>>>Or is it even as in Russian, where the r is "flapped"?  These three
>>>variations on the letter r differ significantly?
>>
>>Like the rolled "r", for instance the Spanish "r", but not the "rr".
>>On the other hand, just about any "r" will be understood, but the
>>French/German/Danish guttural sounds ugly.
> 
> I have tried but am completely unable to roll or trill an "r".  I have no
> problem with the other sounds needed, just can't get the "r" right.  An
> Americian or English "r" sounds bad.
> 
> Someday maybe someone will tell me how to pronounce the "r".  In the meantime,
> if you're like me here's a tip: you can fake a half-trilled "r" by pronouncing
> the "r" as "dr" as in "droll".  It still sounds awful, but it's better than
> nothing!

Try what we were given in Spanish classes when I was a kid:

	Betty wants better butter

Everywhere you see a "tt" in the above is a sound we already have in
American English (Oh-oh; I forgot to check to see if you're a Brit; if
so, it won't work) which is called a flap.  This flap sound is very
similar to the trill or tap /r/ of Esperanto, Spanish, Italian, etc.  

If there were an Esperanto verb _beri_ it would sound a lot like an
American saying "Betty".  Once to become aware of this sound, you
should eventually be able to produce it when you want to.

> 
> Wayne Pollock
-- 
-Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> {Sometimes you have to look reality straight
 OPINIONS ARE MY OWN            {in the eye, and deny it. - G. Keillor
From: malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Fisher)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
Subject: Re: Cases in Esperanto
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:21:15 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Ve! Mi estas stulta. Mi skribis:
{ Oh dear! I am silly. I wrote: }

>
>(Well, I suppose it might be more difficult for
>some non-English speakers -- but "al" works almost the same as "to" in
>English. Mangha?)
>

"Mangha?" Ha! Mi direndis, "Ghusta?" Mi sole _opinias_ ke mi scias
Esperanton. :) Mi petas, sendu al mi E-poshton, se vi vidus malghustojn
en mia Esperanto.

{ "Mangha?" Ha! I should have said, "Ghusta?" ["Right?"] I only _think_
that I know Esperanto. :) Please, send me E-mail if you see mistakes
in my Esperanto. }
-- 
		===========================================
		Robert Fisher / malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
		===========================================
From: malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Fisher)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
Subject: Re: Cases in Esperanto
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:29:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Why confuse people by trying to explain simple concepts by teaching them
something that isn't simple. Why use the word "case" when that's not what
you mean. As someone said in a previous post, the dative case and the
indirect object are not the same thing.

I personally can't see how anyone would be confused about "al" indicating
a indirect object (among other things), unless they have a competely
incompetant teacher. (Well, I suppose it might be more difficult for
some non-English speakers -- but "al" works almost the same as "to" in
English. Mangha?) Obviously, when the time comes the teacher or text
should explain that "al" introduces an indirect object, but it should
not confuse the issue by calling this the dative case.

Of course, the same can be said of "de" & genative. Etc.

Come to think of it, if Esperanto should be said to have more than two
cases, then shouldn't Latin have a "agentive" case that is introduced by
"a/ab"? :)
-- 
		===========================================
		Robert Fisher / malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
		===========================================
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
From: cigno@sgi.com (Kevin Walsh)
Subject: Re: Esperanto pronounciation: n and j
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:23:56 GMT

	I am happy to see that there have been two very fine responses
	to this question.  But I would like to add that it is important
	not to get too caught up in how to properly pronounce something.
	I know people who fear to speak because they are unsure of their
	pronounciation.  This is a pity, because it is through trial
	and error that one learns.

	Also, provided that one is understood, I am of the opinion that 
	what one says is more important that how one says it.  

	BTW, what is the preferred language of this newsgroup?

	Mi gxojas vidi ke estas du tre bonaj respondoj al tiu cxi demando.
	Tamen, mi deziras ankau diri ke oni devas ne memsxnurigxi per kiel
	jxuste elparoli ion.  Mi konas homoj kiuj timas paroli cxar ili 
	ne certas pri elparolo.  Mi bedauras tion cxar mi kredas ke estas 
	kaj per peno kaj per eraro ke oni lernas. 

	Ankau, kondicxe ke oni estas komprenita, mi opinias ke kion oni 
	diras estas pli grava ol kiel oni elparolas.  

	Parenteze, kio estas la preferita lingvo de tiu cxi novajxgrupo?
From: cigno@sgi.com (Kevin Walsh)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
Subject: Re: Q: "Scii" Pronunciation
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:04:20 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <84036@ut-emx.uucp> malirath@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Fisher) writes:
>Pli fru, iu menciis la vorton, "scii". Tiam, mi notis ke mi estis
>prononcinta ghin, kvazaux ghi estis Latina. ("SKI-I") Mi ne povis
>prononci la Esperanta "c" post "s". Chu iu ofertas tiel ke mi akirus
>la ghusta prononcon?

	La sono de "sc" estas cxe la fino de la angla
	vorto, "chests" (ekz., chests of money).

	The sound of "sc" occurs at the end of the English
	word "chests" (e.g., chests of money).
From: pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Jelenc)
Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.esperanto.misc
Subject: Re: Esperanto pronounciation: n and j
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:53:07 GMT
Reply-To: pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Jelenc)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Nov16.230934.2778@polaris.utu.fi> moj@polaris.utu.fi (Matti Jokinen) writes:
>I have been wondering what was Zamenhof's idea of the pronounciation of
>`n' in `nk' and `ng' and `j' in `aj', `ej', `oj', `uj'.  Most books
>recommend that `nk' is pronounced as in `bank' and 'ng' as in `language',
>and that `aj', `ej', `oj' and `uj' are pronounced as diphtongs (meaning
>that `j' is more or less like the vowel `i' in these cases).  However,
>one source tells that the pronounciation of `n' remains unchanged in front
>of `k' or `g' (as in Russian).  It also seems logical to assume that since
>Zamenhof did not invent a separate letter for the diphtong-forming `i',
>as he did for `u', he may have intended `j' to be pronounced more like a
>consonant, perhaps analogous to the Russian `i s kratkoi'.
>
>- Matti Jokinen

"j" in Esperanto is pronounced like "y" in English or "j" in German
and Swedish. It is consonantal (a "semi-vowel") in that it _never_ can
exist without the support of a vowel either before or after it. Thus
"j" is to "i" what "u^" is to "u".

A proper prononciation should not change the sound of a letter because
of its environment with the single exception of the tonic stress on
the penultimate syllable. "nk" is pronounced as "n" + "k", and most of
the times these consonants will find themselves in two different
syllables. Care should be taken not to nasalize a vowel followed by
"n" nor to turn "n" to a palatal ("ng") before "k" or "g". This may be
difficult at first, but one should try to keep the sounds "clean" and
pure.

Pierre


Pierre Jelenc                        pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu 
                                    Columbia University, New York