Message-Id: <199602131454.JAA17321@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 05:13:06 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: *old response on y and apostrophe
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: O
Content-Length: 1015

>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.

There has been very little complaint that LOjban is too redundant, and
rather the reverse.  JCB likes his conventions in part because they offer ADDED
 redundancy after the pattern of English - since capitals at the beginning of
sentences are certainly NOT required except for redundancy.  He doesn't need
an apostrophe becasue he slurs all his glides anyway - his "eo" sounds
like "eio", which is one reason we introduced the apostrophe: to make it
clear that such slurring was NOT correct.

lojbab