From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Feb 9 10:39:28 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id KAA08719 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:39:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199602091539.KAA08719@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 617DD2F2 ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:03:53 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 07:05:42 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: loglan rapprochement orthography X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1247 >> 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). > >Thanks. Is this a rejected proposal, or is it an official alternative >orthography? It has been ignored by JCB, and was proposed as part of the negotiation effort. It's status is therefore something akin to "officially proposed". It has been in the drafy dictionary for a long time and hence can be considered as official as anything not part of the current baseline. But on the other hand it has bever been tested in usage by anyone who actually has tried to use the current TLI standard, and thus for a considerable while will be more proposal than reality. 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. lojbab