From - Tue Feb 20 15:05:25 1996 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id HAA13405 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 07:02:11 -0500 Message-Id: <199602181202.HAA13405@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id C9D91190 ; 18 Feb 1996 6:24:42 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 11:25:49 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: loglan rapprochement orthography X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2167 John: > la .iVAN. cusku di'e > > Whatever it is phonetically, it is structurally not > > a consonant (it can't be one of the {C}s in {CVCCV}, {CCV} and all the > > other formulae), so I'd rather keep it graphically distinct from them > > as well. (This is also an argument against {h} in Roman.) > doi .and., please take note. This is the point we've been trying to > make and (apparently) failing to. No, I am aware of this. I recognize it as a genuine, albeit (as with most arguments pertain to the orthography) extremely puny, argument against . I'm not sure what the criteria for graphical distinctness are, so I won't address that point. As for the idea that using implies that there is a C at that position: it doesn't when the lojban orthography is looked at in isolation, and while admittedly H functions as a rather defective consonant in the phonologies of latin and some other major languages that use the roman alph, equally it also functions as a diacritic of sorts in pretty well every major roman alph language. Then there's the matter, raised by Ivan & JulianP, of omission of <'> obscuring certain within-selmao patternings. The same criticism can be levelled at the loglany alternative standard, of course. My initial response to this is: (i) how widespread are these patternings? (ii) how many are lost through nonuse of the std std? (iii) are any useful new patternings in fact brought into being by nonuse of the std std? Let's assume for the sake of argument that the upshot of (i-iii) is that the std std is significantly better. Well in that case we could equally well seek a way of marking , e.g. by some diacritical mark, or by using a different character for the glide - e.g. (also ) tho this particular suggestion has the disadvantage of making correspond (unambiguously) to two phonemes. Note that I think the arguments pro my orthog (or a loglany one) and con the standard standard are sufficient to conclude only that each should be acceptable, and not that everyone should emulate my example. coo, mie and