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 TAA08618 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:14:17 +0200 Message-Id: <199602121714.TAA08618@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 62DDD98A ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:14:17 +0100 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:44:16 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: loglan rapprochement orthography X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199602101447.JAA09053@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Feb 10, 96 02:14:33 pm Content-Length: 988 Lines: 24 > Can one mix the two standards? E.g. use "ao" rather than "au", but "x" > rather than "x"? I suppose you mean "h" rather than "x". Do what you will, of course. Standards do not bind those who do not claim to adhere to them. > Syllabic r l m n only occurs in cmevla and fuivla, right? Yes. > 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/". Seemingly not: it is a mere convention, as in the similarly spelled Pinyin sound. JCB scorns the IPA, but his Anglo-phonetic respellings of Loglan make it clear that by "ao" he intends the diphthong of English "brown cow". The whole purpose of the alternative orthography is to make Lojban pronounceable at sight to those who know TLI Loglan. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.