From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Sep 17 19:26:02 1997
Message-Id: <199709180025.TAA23277@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Wed Sep 17 19:26:02 1997
Reply-To: HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: "lojbab"
X-To:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199709170316.XAA20788@access2.digex.net>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  540


On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Logical Language Group wrote:

> >Our
> >English spelling for the Lojban word "lojbab" would presumably be
> >something like "lozhbub"! :)
>
> I hope not.  The unstressed "a" in "lojbab" should not be reduced to a schwa.

But the unstressed "a" in "lojbab" is not reduced to a schwa in "lozhbub";
it's just shortened, but it's still taut. If we really wanted to, we
could say "lozhbarb" to make it longer, but "lozhbahb" looks a bit off.
But the real sound, I take it, is somewhere in between.

Geoff