From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 08 14:52:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Dec 2002 22:52:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 64202 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 22:52:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 22:52:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 22:52:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LAHf-0006si-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 14:52:23 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LAHY-0006sP-00; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 14:52:16 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 08 Dec 2002 14:52:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LAHT-0006sG-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 14:52:12 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.57] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD2DA4600CC; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 17:52:29 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:52:08 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <20021208223957.GF14879@digitalkingdom.org> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.57] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 3311 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: raganok@intrex.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: raganok@intrex.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out >> >In other words, the problem is not only that [h] and [x] are rather >> >similar in isolation, >Umm, what? >We *are* talking about lojban ' and x, right? It isn't nice to assume that lojbaN ' is the same as ipa [h] - remember, this is not normative (though it is normal) and the CLL explicitly mentions [T] as an acceptable pronunciation. Some of us see "lojbaN '" and immediately think [T].