Message-Id: <199602152035.PAA08298@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:45:19 +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: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Content-Length:  996

> >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/.
> No because the actually phonoilogy is identical - it is the orthographic
> representation of the diphthong that differs, and not the diphthong
> itself.

I don't see the relevance of diphthongs here. Is "diphthong", in a lojban
context, not merely a descriptive label for a sequence of certain
phonemes?

I understood that every letter corresponds uniquely to one phoneme.
I further understood that with the two different standard orthographies,
every letter should still correspond uniquely to one phoneme, but some
phonemes are representable by more than one letter.

Do I misunderstand? Does the second phoneme in <bo> (both orthographies)
occur in the word <lau> (standard standard)?

I am confused, and I rather suspect that this matter was not considered
when the rapprochement orthography was designed.

coo, mie and