From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 09 22:05:45 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3334 ; Fri, 09 Jun 95 22:05:40 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 08 Jun 95 20:20:40 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa02588; 8 Jun 95 21:19 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6989; Thu, 08 Jun 95 14:30:08 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0226; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 13:45:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 18:46:26 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: And's morphology proposal X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 07 Jun 95 13:35:18 D.) Message-ID: <9506082119.aa02588@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Lojbab: > > I would like to propose that the following syllables be > > made available as cmavo: > > > > bua bue bui buo (buu) [bwa bwe bwi bwo (bwu)] > > ... > In other words you are proposing that we add in a problem we got rid of > in leaving TLI Loglan behind. > The problem is that some of these diphthong combinations become > difficult to say or hear for some speakers. e.g. > > sia vs. ca > zia vs. ja > tia vs. tca No. I didn't propose these. All the CiV had a labial C. I also noted that .uu and .ii are phonologically bad. So my proposal is still good. [I realize you were too busy to read the proposal carefully, so no complaints.] --- And