[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Allophones of zero in Lojban
- To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
- Subject: Allophones of zero in Lojban
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 14:29:20 EST
- In-Reply-To: "61510::GILSON"'s message of Thu, 30 Jan 1992 12:29:00 EST
- Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
I don't know. On the one hand, the "y" and the buffer vowel (and for that
matter, laxly-pronounced "a"'s) are just too likely to get confused. And,
as And said, "y" is a very reasonable choice for a buffer vowel. On the
other hand, I can't come up with a pretty way to do away with the function
of "y" in morphology (cf. my "bastrapli/bastyrapli" example). Personally,
if it weren't such a big change in the way things are done and such a
hassle on phoneticization of cmene and the like, I'd almost rather see
keeping everything as it stands, but allowing (mandating?) schwa as buffer
vowel and changing the pronunciation of "y" to "\"u" (u-umlaut). Yeah,
it's kind of Volap"ukian, but it's certainly recognizable as different from
everything else, feels like a good "hyphen" sound to me, and even makes
decent hesitation noise (try it!).
~mark (shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu)