Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tHZhw-0000ZUC; Mon, 20 Nov 95 19:08 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id AEC9884D ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 18:08:39 +0100 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:59:49 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Buffer and Vowel phonology X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK, Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199511191954.OAA04987@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 19, 95 04:02:34 pm Content-Length: 762 Lines: 20 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 I thought that licence had been rescinded!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.