RE: [lojban] What's the logic behind Lojban's sound system?

["And Rosta" <a-rosta@alphaphe.com>]

Craig:
> >> > #>The phonology of /'/ and /@/, where /@/ = buffer vowel is so stupid
> >> > #>-- so unlike anything in natlangs -- that it is simply indefensible.
> >>
> >> I don't know about that. Colloquial Turkish uses a short "i" (that's an
> >> English "i", not a Lojban "i"!) or occasionally "ü" to buffer foreign
> words,
> >> e.g. "film" is often pronounced "filim" and "studyo", "sütüdyo".
>
> >The thing I consider stupid is the definition of their realizations
> >as "none of the above". The notion of epenthetic vowels is a perfectly
> >natural one, which I'm all in favour of.
>
> ' does not mean 'no other consonant', it means [T] or [h].

I may be wrong, but my recollection is that it is defined as any 'voiceless
glide' that is outside the realizational space of any other phoneme. This
would make [T] a relatively obvious realization (and [h] a poor one), but
not the only one. A lateral fricative would do, for example (unless one
wants to quibble on the exact definition of 'glide'). At any rate, "none
of the above" -- to put it crudely -- plays a part in the definition of
the realization of /'/ and the buffer vowel.

--And.