From ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Mon Aug 2 17:00:57 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 2 Aug 1993 17:00:55 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3399; Mon, 02 Aug 93 16:59:48 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6666; Mon, 02 Aug 93 17:01:02 EDT Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 21:58:28 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: Re: logban ' X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, Logical Language Group To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 29 Jul 93 23:54:38 EDT.) <9307300356.AA30630@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: Lojbab writes: > The main reason for not transscribing apostrophe as "h" is NOT that it is not > equivalent to "h", which is true but a less important point. The important > feature about apostrophe is that it doesn't look like a normal alphanbetic > character in Lojban, and it is not. Regardless of the formal phonetics, > in Lojban ' is NOT a consonant. Nor is it a vowel. It is a pronunciation > guide that says devoice the glide between these two vowels when you > pronounce them as two syllables. (1) Phonetically, ' is a consonant if [h] is (answer: it sort of is & it sort of isn't). (2) Lojbanically, h is not a consonant unless Lojban says it is. If consonants are defined as the things occupying C slots in morphological templates, then ' or h is not a consonant & it really makes no difference systemically whether the character ' or h is used. The debate has no really rational foundation; it is a matter of "which of ' and h do you feel best suits the way you feel about this non- consonant intervocalic thingummy, or which do you find most practical". Neither the antis nor the pros have given any decent arguments against ' and h, but as some people prefer h I feel it can't do much harm to let them use it. > Notwithstanding this, the "h" is recognized as an alternate to apostrophe as > part of a larger system of alternate orthography that is used to make the > language look more similar to other forms of Loglan. People who are writing > in that alternate orthography are welcome to use the "h", Is this correct? I can't get access to the alternative orthography right now, but I would have expected that "h" would be an alternative to "x" if rapprochement with aboriginal Loglan were being sought. [Incidentally, if people really are making an effort to seek rapprochement with TLI Loglan, how come Lojbanists don't post their conciliatory or reconciliatory ideas to the Loglanists list? Granted that there is a message on that list once in a blue moon, but when there is it isn't from an active Lojbanist. (An exception is a recent message from Colin Fine, who coyly mentions "a certain other version of Loglan", which was taking treading on eggshells a bit far, I thought.)] -------- mihelahoma. And ma.