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 QAA03084 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:23:37 +0200 Message-Id: <199602131423.QAA03084@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 9C0BDA15 ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:22:54 +0100 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 05:48:22 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: loglan rapprochement orthography X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 646 Lines: 14 >No, in IPA it could reasonably be represented with [o] as well as [u]. > >Anyway, it seems then that these are alternative phonologies as well as >alternative orthographies. One has /au/ and no /ao/, and the other has >/ao/ and no /au/. No because the actually phonoilogy is identical - it is the orthographic representation of the diphthong that differs, and not the diphthong itself. JCB seems to pride himself on inventing his own jargon terminology and conventions rather than finding out what linguistics has done in the same place. It makes his stuff ever harder to read once you get used to the lingusitic definitions of terms. lojbab