From raganok@intrex.net Sun Dec 08 14:52:15 2002
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
From: "Craig" <raganok@intrex.net>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:52:08 -0500
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFMEFJCNAA.raganok@intrex.net>
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
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

>> >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].