From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Dec 07 12:39:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Dec 2002 20:39:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 80008 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 20:39:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2002 20:39:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 20:39:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Kljr-0007mK-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 12:39:51 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Kljp-0007m1-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 12:39:49 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 12:39:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Kljk-0007ls-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 12:39:44 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gB7Kk4G9015994 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 14:46:04 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gB7Kk4sY015993 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 14:46:04 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 14:46:04 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Aesthetics Message-ID: <20021207204604.GA15906@allusion.net> References: <20021207202246.GA15698@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="opJtzjQTFsWo+cga" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 3233 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 03:28:24PM -0500, Craig wrote: > >> >> Presumably And was indending to replace them with another letter? > >> > >> >Like and H or a Q, possibly pronounced like "theta"? > >> > >> This would be useful in, eg, translating Twain - it allows us to spell= out > >> alternative pronunciations. But in normal writing, it would only be > >> divisive; I dislike h for ' because [h] is not an optimal pronunciatio= n and > >> /h/ pronounced [T] is just crazy. >=20 > >Why is [h] not an optimal pronunciation for '? (Yes I know the > >title of the thread is 'aesthetics', but you seem to be implying > >there's some kind of reason). >=20 > Because there is a greater phonic contrast between [T] and [f] or [s] tha= n > between [h] and [x]. I disagree. To me, [s] sounds almost like [T]. But [x] and [h] sound *totally* different. This line of reasoning is bogus anyway though; languages can divide their sounds however they want. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE98l4LDrrilS51AZ8RAvCRAKCR1Rl/n9j6MPDeyJKTnrXrfTdPaACgkKBB sXttV+fWJUWbA1CEVrLF3cs= =TKY2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga--