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

From: Adam Raizen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 06:13:12 +0200

de'i li 2002-12-07 ti'u li 22:47:00 la'o zoi. Craig .zoi cusku di'e

>>>This reminds me of something I was wondering about. Is the german
>>>sound of ch in "ich" an allowed pronunciation of "'"?
>
>>It depends on what you mean by "allowed". If you mean allowed as a
>>permitted variant, as CLL describes on p. 31 (3.3), then I think that
>>the answer is yes: it's a voiceless fricative not already used in
>>Lojban. Still, as CLL says one sentence later, "the convenience of the
>>listener should be regarded as paramount in deciding to use a
>>substitute for [h]." (i.e., don't use it. :-)
>
>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.

mu'o mi'e .adam.