Message-Id: <199602121721.MAA11838@mail1.access.digex.net>
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:44:16 -0500
Reply-To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Subject:      Re: loglan rapprochement orthography
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <199602101447.JAA09053@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Feb 10,
              96 02:14:33 pm
Status: OR
Content-Length:  988

> 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.