Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id GAA10595 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 06:55:16 +0200 Message-Id: <199602130455.GAA10595@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 58EF7709 ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 5:55:31 +0100 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:24:58 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: loglan rapprochement orthography To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 735 Lines: 16 > >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