Message-Id: <199602101415.QAA08443@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 14:14:33 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: loglan rapprochement orthography
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1058
Lines: 22

> >> In short: names and ".i" are capitalized, word-final pauses are written
> >> as commas, word-initial pauses are either not marked or are marked by
> >> adding a comma to the previous word, syllabic r l m n are doubled, /x/
> >> is written as "h", /au/ is written as "ao", apostrophes are replaced by
> >> commas (which need not be written unless ambiguity would result, viz.
> >> a,i e,i o,i a,o always; i,a i,e i,i i,o i,u u,a u,e u,i u,o u,u in UIs,
> >> names, and fu'ivla).
> If you are considering using it - fine - just do so in whole cloth,
> not taking only those parts you like, which renders its potential
> value as an alternate *standard* useless.

Can one mix the two standards? E.g. use "ao" rather than "au", but "x"
rather than "x"?

Syllabic r l m n only occurs in cmevla and fuivla, right?

On the whole I prefer this standard to the standard standard, but I'm
a bit worried by "ao" - that's more than a matter of orthography, for
it appears to be saying "here is a /o/" where the standard standard
says "here is a /u/".

coo, mie and