Quoting Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > Here, you could either analyze it as merely an orthographic trick to
> > avoid an unwanted |oa| sequence, or as an overenthusiastic indication
> > of the subphonemic glide breaking up the unwanted [o.a] sequence into
> > [o.ja]. Without this convention, you couldn't know whether **aeoas
> > spelt [ajojas] or [ajewas], which apparently troubles the
> > megheanophones more than the existing ambiguities.
>
> Fools. Which is to say, <aeoas> looks so much better than <aeohas>.
Now you're badmouthing imaginary people ... some more brightly coloured pills?
Andreas