From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Wed Mar 17 08:34:03 1993
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 17 Mar 1993 13:35:34 -0500
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 8773; Wed, 17 Mar 93 13:34:25 EST
Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP  id 0374; Wed, 17 Mar 93 13:35:30 EST
Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 1993 13:34:03 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Subject:      Re: phonetic irregularity
X-To:         wil@CIX.COMPULINK.CO.UK
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: O
Message-ID: <RGrZ310sGMB.A.21.220kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

I think that "doe" and "woe" rhyme also.  So do Lojban "do" and "uo".
In the diphthong, the "u" is acting as the semivowel form, which is "w".
The important thing is to not do the normal diphthongization practice of
English, which is to slop your "o" into ending with a "u" glide, which
might be heard as "o,u".  Thus, improper for "do" would be "do,u".  Keep
the "o" short, and if necessary, a bit clipped.

lojbab