From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 04 19:10:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 02:10:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 81915 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 02:10:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 02:10:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 02:10:09 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.25]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010805021008.GIBB15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:10:08 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: (C)V'{i|u}V Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:09:16 +0100 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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010804230045.A425@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Richard: > So this raises a new question, should we treat any vowel pair that is > not a valid diphthong as though it has a hidden comma in it? > > ai, au, ei and oi would always have to be left as they are. > > Others (aa,ae,ao,ea,ee,eo,eu,oa,oe,oo,ou) _could_ be automatically > treated as though they have a comma (==apostrophe). But is this > entertained by the baseline? In my more heteropractic youth I used to use this orthography. I believe it is officially entertained as part of the TLI rapprochement orthography, because JCB -- clearly a man of good taste -- hated these bloody apostrophes. --And.