Message-Id: <m0tFRR4-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:46:38 -0500
Reply-To:     John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Subject:      Re: buffer vowel
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199511141847.NAA22066@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 14,
              95 06:20:41 pm
Content-Length: 2421
Lines: 56

mi joi. la .and. cusku be di'e casnu

> > [T]he slinku'i test says that if a string is potentially ambiguous
> > between le'avla and cmavo+lujvo, the le'avla is banned.
>
> Oh, right - of course. Except the ambiguity is cmavo+fuivla versus
> lujvo - *{pa slinkui} vs {paslinkui}.

Right, that's what I meant to say.

> Incidentally, how come you still use "dikyjvo" and "le'avla", instead
> of "jvajvo" and "fu'ivla"?

Er.  I missed the switch to "jvajvo", which is obviously correct.  As for
"fu'ivla", I don't like it any better than "le'avla", so I've stuck with
the traditional form however bad it is.

> > > Or do as Chris suggests, and scrap buffering.
> > I'm beginning to think that this is the best alternative available.
>
> I think you're right. This is a great pity, as I'm dead dead fond of
> buffer vowels. I'd still prefer to change things to solve the problem
> and keep buffering, but it would probably involve changes noone would
> wear. For example, I'd like to make /y/ [y] and the buffer vowel [@].

Buffer-hyphen equivalence would be possible if something other than "y"
were used after 4-letter rafsi: one alternative, which was considered back
in 1982, was to use "r"/"n" hyphenation.  However, it's way too late to
do that, because "natmrcimri" is now firmly established as le'avla, not
fully unreduced lujvo.

> But no current lojban speaker would consent to this.

Right.  lojbab, in particular, believes that /y/ and /oe/ helped to shoot
down /volapyk/.

I'm now leaning toward scrapping the detailed exposition in favor of a
short caveat, something like this.

# It is recognized that not all speakers will be able to pronounce all of
# the consonant clusters.  If necessary, a speaker may add an ultrashort
# vowel between the consonants, known as a buffer vowel.  Buffer vowels
# have no specifically prescribed pronunciation and are not represented in
# writing; listeners are intended to interpret buffered consonant clusters
# as if they were the corresponding unbuffered ones.
#
# Using a buffer vowel may cause naive
# listeners to misunderstand if they mistake the buffer vowel for one of
# the six Lojban vowels, so speakers who use buffer vowels should make them
# as different as possible from their pronunciation of the Lojban vowels.

Comments, doi la .and. joi ro do?

--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.