From - Wed Feb 14 12:49:17 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 AAA19741 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:28:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199602130528.AAA19741@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 2DCF7280 ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:52:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:24:58 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: loglan rapprochement orthography X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 755 > >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/". > Take it up with JCB - he insists, in the face of linguistic convention, > that the au diphthong is really an ao diphthong. However you represent > it, it is the same sound, which I am sure in IPA would continue to be > represented with a 'u'. No, in IPA it could reasonably be represented with [o] as well as [u]. Anyway, it seems then that these are alternative phonologies as well as alternative orthographies. One has /au/ and no /ao/, and the other has /ao/ and no /au/. coo, mie and