Message-Id: <199602130908.EAA10207@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:09:46 BG
Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski <IAD@BGEARN.BITNET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Ivan A Derzhanski <IAD@BGEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: loglan rapprochement orthography
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  Message of Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:11:04 -0500 from 
              <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: O
Content-Length: 1216

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:11:04 -0500 John Cowan said:
>It will probably be printed in the front matter of the dictionary, marked
>"unofficial", along with Ivan's Cyrillic orthography (which is too simple
>to explain, except to state that /y/ is represented by the hard sign,
>and /'/ by the soft.)

What, there is a Lojban Cyrillic orthography by me?  Wow.  I wonder
what other remarkable things I've done and forgotten everything about.

But since it's mine, even though I don't remember making it, I'm going
to make a slight alteration in it:  Let {'} be written {'} in Cyrillic
as well as Latin.  Whatever it is phonetically, it is structurally not
a consonant (it can't be one of the {C}s in {CVCCV}, {CCV} and all the
other formulae), so I'd rather keep it graphically distinct from them
as well.  (This is also an argument against {h} in Roman.)

While we're at that:  There is also a more or less systematic opposition
between the {VV} and {V'V} diphthongs in Lojban (in some selma'o the cmavo
are all {VV}, in others they are all {V'V}), and that opposition is lost
if the apostrophe is left out because there's no {VV} diphthong of the
corresponding kind.  (This is my vote against {aa} and the like.)

--Ivan