From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Mar 24 18:38:36 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 25 Mar 2003 02:38:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 63690 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 02:38:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2003 02:38:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.112) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 02:38:36 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:38:35 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:38:35 GMT X-Originating-Email: [jjllambias@hotmail.com] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ancient clicks Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:38:35 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2003 02:38:35.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[A26DCC90:01C2F277] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djan cusku di'e >Jorge Llambias scripsit: > > > But that would mean they are no longer allophones. The 'n' > > in {tcomolunmas} should be pronounced just like the 'n' in > > {lunma} would be pronounced. > >No, I don't agree. [n] and [N] are in free variation, not in systematic >variation, but that doesn't make them any the less allophones. If {tcomoluNmas} is marked as having a different pronunciation than {tcomolunmas}, I don't see how they can still be called allophones. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail