From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Apr 29 16:40:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 29 Apr 2002 23:40:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 13481 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 23:40:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2002 23:40:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 23:40:18 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A9E45B80182; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:40:20 -0400 To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] What's the logic behind Lojban's sound system? Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:40:16 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> > #>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].