Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by mail1.access.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA20897;  for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:31:56 -0500
Message-Id: <199602130031.TAA20897@mail1.access.digex.net>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 3388D9F0 ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:27:52 -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: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 518
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 12 19:32:00 1996
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

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