From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Apr 29 18:02:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 30 Apr 2002 01:02:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 49144 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2002 01:02:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Apr 2002 01:02:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2002 01:02:57 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD3BE5E0136; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:02:51 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] What's the logic behind Lojban's sound system? Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:02:47 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <17d.7961f69.29ff446a@aol.com> 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 >' does not mean 'no other consonant', it means [T] or [h]. >or any other unvoiced consonant that cannot be confused with normal Lojban consonants. It is hard to think of what these might be, but if you come up with >one, it is legal (more so, indeed, than /h/, which regularly collapses to /x/ (well, actually the other way round, but confusion none the less)). 2.3 (31) In other words, /T/, or that weird wh some English dialects use. >robin tr: >goddam syllabic "r"s!> >Hoy! As a speaker of a dialect that uses syllabic rs (retroflexed schwas) all over the place, I object to "goddam." They're much prettier than >pharyngealized vowels used by those with "r-less" dialects -- and can even be thought of as rs! (And they don't trigger my gag reflex/) I agree.