From raganok@intrex.net Sun Dec 08 19:26:56 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LEZI-0003Pq-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:26:52 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.38] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD92C4300EA; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 22:27:14 -0500 From: "Craig" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 22:26:51 -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: Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.38] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 3334 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 >>Some nonnormative usage permitted by CLL might be desirable, and some >>seems to have no use except to permit as many possibilities as possible, >>without having a good reason for why the additional possibilities are >>desirable. I don't see any purpose to allowing variants for .y'y., >>except to allow as many possibilities as possible, especially since >>I cannot possibly imagine [h] and [T] as allophones. I consider using >>any sound other than [h] for .y'y. to be poor style. >I happen to think you're wrong, but that is neither here nor there. That was a little unclear. The part that is nowhere is only the "some seems...as possible" - the rest matters, at least enough to merit responses on the liste.