Message-Id: <9202162353.AA02826@relay2.UU.NET>
Date:         Sun, 16 Feb 1992 23:48:11 GMT
Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!iad>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!iad>
Subject:      consonant cluster lerfu
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  "Mark E. Shoulson"'s message of Sun,
              16 Feb 1992 13:38:01 EST <5930.9202161915@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
Status: RO

>  Date:        Sun, 16 Feb 1992 13:38:01 EST
>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>
>  Why not just make 'em cmene, which nobody cares about?  so {tsyt. bu} or
>  something?

Or {.ets.bu} and {.etc.bu}.

>  Hell, I'm not much averse to the hebrew as {alef. bu, bet. bu,
>  gimel. bu, li'o}.

You're not very much averse to it?  I cheerfully vote in favour of it.
I prefer being able to use the traditional names of the letters
(lojbanised, of course, which in this case means cmeneified and with
{bu} added at the end), rather than learn the new ones.  Besides, it
is more elegant this way, given that the alternative is to do this for
some letters (such as aleph and ayin), while naming the rest after
their alleged counterparts in the Lojban alphabet.  Ditto for the
Greek alphabet (if we have {.et.bu} and {.omeg.bu}, we might as well
have {.epsilon.bu} and {.omikron.bu}, rather than {.ebu} and {.obu}).

Ivan