From cbmvax!uunet!61510.decnet!ccf1.nrl.navy.mil!gilson Mon Feb 3 16:12:01 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 3 Feb 92 16:11 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA03713; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:44:03 EST Received: from buphy.bu.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA05262; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:43:44 -0500 Received: from ccf1.nrl.navy.mil by buphy.bu.edu (4.0/Umax-4.3) id AA32514; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:39:18 EST Message-Id: <9202032039.AA32514@buphy.bu.edu> Date: 3 Feb 92 15:01:00 EST From: "61510::GILSON" Subject: Allophones of zero, continued To: "newlang" Status: RO And Rosta writes: >Lojbab: [text deleted] >> There is one other facet in this - since Lojban speech is audio-visually >> isomorphic, any 'real' sound would also appear in writing. The buffer sound, >> if audible, is not written. There is no symbol for it - by definition it is >> NOT a phoneme of the language. >It may not be a lerfu, or the approximate Lojban equivalent of phoneme, but >in no phonological theory is there being a graphical symbol for some >sound a necessary and sufficient condition for that sound being a phoneme. >In traditional phonemic analysis I guess the buffer vowel would tend to >be analysed as a phoneme (which happens to be prone to deletion). The catch is that in Lojban, _every_ grapheme has to correspond to a phoneme in 1-1 correspondence. Even the punctuation is pronounced! I admit that it makes for a weird language, and in LangX I get away from this in deference to the behavior of normal languages, but Lojban has its own strange logic in these regards. Bruce