From - Wed Feb 14 12:48:27 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 UAA26311 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:03:56 -0500
Message-Id: <199602130103.UAA26311@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 35E462C0 ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:27:56 -0500
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:22:32 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: *old response on y and apostrophe
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  534


LOjbab:
> I have yet to hear an argument against apostrophe that doesn't reduce
> to (predominantly malglico or malropno) aesthetics, or the incompatibility
> of some software with using "punctuation marks" as letters of the
> alphabet - these software products apparently cannot handle standard
> English contractions as well, I presume.

A further argument is redundancy; the <'> is usually nondistinctive
and can be omitted without confusion. Same for glottal stops, if
spaces are left between words.

coo, mie and