From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Feb 13 03:35:55 1996 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 DAA19688; for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 03:35:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199602130835.DAA19688@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 E1975440 ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 3:32:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:09:46 +0200 Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Re: loglan rapprochement orthography To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:11:04 -0500 from Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1218 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