[lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Adam:
> de'i li 2002-12-07 ti'u li 22:47:00 la'o zoi. Craig .zoi cusku di'e
> >If it meant "don't use it" it wouldn't have said you could. If your listener
> >finds [T] hard, don't use [T]. But if your listener finds [h] hard, don't
> >use [h]. Or if your listener is like most listeners and can understand
> >either, use whichever. But don't use an orthography that assumes one 
> 
> I suspect that most listeners will be able to understand either/all, but
> would find anything other than [h] needlessly distracting, and in general
> you have to concentrate quite a bit to understand spoken lojban anyway, so 
> there's no sense in adding a distraction 

In a sense, it is desirable to use [T] for precisely this reason: if
[T] is allowed by the baseline/design but proscribed by convention,
then we we end up with convention that contravenes the baseline by
prescribing a range of usage narrower than what the baseline permits.
We can generalize this futher to such things as use of the buffer
vowel, use of non-'SVO' bridi, and so forth. That is, nonnormative
usage is to be encouraged, so that in these early days of usage we
don't set in stone conventions narrower than the baseline.

--And.