From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Mon Feb 3 13:38:40 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 3 Feb 92 13:38 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA11503; Mon, 3 Feb 92 13:12:39 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA12443; Mon, 3 Feb 92 12:11:32 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA08920; Mon, 3 Feb 92 12:11:28 EST Message-Id: <9202031711.AA08920@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 7399; Mon, 03 Feb 92 12:09:08 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7824; Mon, 03 Feb 92 11:55:45 EST Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 10:51:00 EST Reply-To: "61510::GILSON" Sender: Lojban list From: "61510::GILSON" Subject: Epenthetic schwa? X-To: lojban To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO Ivan A Derzhanski writes: >I'm generally opposed to the idea of a buffer vowel, because I think >it would make word recognition much more difficult. I would favour an >epenthetic schwa, say, {.ymlatu}, where the listener would naturally >delete the {.y-} as a semantically empty space filler. I wonder when anyone would need the epenthetic schwa. Lojbab pointed out to me that words like "mlatu" aren't as hard to say as I'd think, _because_ they will usually be preceded by the ending vowel of a word like "la" or "doi" and one can (so to speak) lean on that vowel; i. e., pronounce "la mlatu" as if it were "*lam latu." If people habitually do that, it seems that Ivan's schwa isn't needed. Bruce