Message-Id: <199602101520.RAA08655@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:15:43 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: loglan rapprochement orthography
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1458
Lines: 33

>Can one mix the two standards? E.g. use "ao" rather than "au", but "x"
>rather than "x"?

That is specifically what we did NOT want.  It was a way to make our texts
look just like JCB's texts and thus eliminate a reported problems that
he has with the aestehtic appearance of Lojban block text.  It was NOT
seriously intended as a "better" way to do things.  Of the alternatives,
only the doubled vocalic consonants is something I would even consider as
a standalonechange, since it reflects a legitimate objection to Lojban
orthography - a fear that vocalics are so phonetically different from their
non-syllabic counterparts that a phonemic difference could arise in the
community (there is not one designed in, of course).

>Syllabic r l m n only occurs in cmevla and fuivla, right?

They can occur in lujvo, or rather r and n can, as the hyphen after an
initial CVV rafsi.

>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'.

But if we allowed piecemeal adoption of the alternative, we would satisfy
 neither JCB nor LLG.

lojbab