From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:49 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 24508 invoked from network); 17 Sep 1997 23:12:12 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 17 Sep 1997 23:12:12 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <8.55668B54@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 1:12:02 +0100
Date:         Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:09:58 +1000
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:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199709170316.XAA20788@access2.digex.net>
Content-Length: 522
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <G7szp19-rCJ.A.rj.910kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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