Re: [lojban] la .alis.

[Michael Everson <michael.everson@gmail.com>]

On 28 Mar 2010, at 16:22, And Rosta wrote:

> IMO /./ is a phoneme whose primary allophone is [?]. That does not imply owt about how it shd be rendered graphologically or typographically, tho.

Jonathan wrote {la.parIs.} but it would seem to me to be unlikely that this represents [laʔpaˈrisʔ] with a glottal stop before the [p] and after the [s]. 

>>> I would appreciate it if anyone who *is* interested in this would say so, as I'd like to discuss the options regarding redundant markup of quoted material.
>> 
>> I'm interested.
> 
> I'm interested too, and in the general question of how to reconcile the highly evolved traditions of roman typography with Lojban.

Splendid. I'm sure that this will be a good Gedankenexperiment as well, in terms of questions of orthography design and so on.

> But it's probably realistic to recognize that most Lojbanists have no interest in such reconciliation, and would wish for the typography to be wholly subjugated to prevailing Lojban conventions.

That's OK. 

Michael

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.