From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:57:48 2010 Subject: Re: Buffer and Vowel phonology To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:59:49 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511191954.OAA04987@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 19, 95 04:02:34 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 716 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 20 11:59:49 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: la lojbab. cusku di'e > > but just as you can susbstitute any unvoiced non-Lojban consonant > > sound for the apostrophe, and get away with it, as long as you keep > > things distinct, vowels should work just as well. la .and. cusku di'e > Is that still allowed? I thought that licence had been rescinded! And > there's me doing [h]s when I cd have been doing voiceless bilabial > trills! You can use an alternative voiceless fricative if you think the listener benefits thereby (i.e. when speaking to a listener who can hear [T] better than [h], e.g.). Vowel buffering, OTOH, is supposed to be for the speaker's benefit, which is naljbo at best. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.