From iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx Sun Sep 19 14:55:40 1999 X-Digest-Num: 238 Message-ID: <44114.238.1299.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:55:40 -0700 From: Ivan A Derzhanski . I don't mind ligatures in general, but I don't think I'd want any in Lojban -- for the same Vulcanish reason as above: the distinction that would be introduced between ligatured and unligatured sequences would be illogical and artificial, and by virtue of that fact most undesirable in the context of Lojban. (3) Lojban in tengwar should work, although, in fairness, there are natlangs whose consonant structures are more regular, and which are better candidates for being written in tengwar (I'd nominate Nivkh, or any of a number of Australian languages such as Aranta). But no primary-order tengwa for {'}, please! Writing it as if it were a voiceless velar fricative would make it more similar to {k} or {x} that many other consonants would be. If it must be a tengwa, let it be a very distinctive one such as yanta. (This is why I've always opposed {h} for {'} in Roman script -- it should be very prominent, but it is a Good Thing that it doesn't look like a consonant.) And if you want to take advantage of the logicality of the tengwar, you shouldn't dream of writing {x} as if it were a voiced consonant. -- "mu' Dajatlhpa', reH DajatlhlaH, (Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi) Ivan A Derzhanski H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences