From nessus@free.fr Fri Dec 06 05:37:47 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 13:37:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 63904 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 13:37:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 13:37:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 13:37:46 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KIfq-0001Bi-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:37:46 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KIfj-0001BR-00; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:37:39 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out-4.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.23] helo=mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KIfe-0001BI-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:37:34 -0800 Received: from mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.193) by mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr (6.7.010) id 3DEF1E1B000EEE75 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:37:03 +0100 Received: from tanj (80.9.199.171) by mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (6.7.010) id 3DEE017F0014BD8B for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:37:03 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c29d2c$90a68830$abc70950@tanj> To: References: Subject: [lojban] Re: cmegadri valfendi preti Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:35:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-archive-position: 3134 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Lionel Vidal" Reply-To: nessus@free.fr X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf And Rosta: > Nora to pier: > > I realize > > you are trying to enlarge the area of acceptable names, but (aside from > > the fact that I support the existing definition as baseline) I think you > > are > > doing the LISTENERS a disservice if you wish to have such things as > > {muSTElaVIson} as a name. The name-maker can take his/her time and > > analyze > > what he/she has built. The listener, however, may well be hearing it > > for the first time (and therefore cannot just pull it out as a known > > glob). And, the speech stream gives very little time for the listener > > to analyze new things; if she/he takes too long, the rest of the > > sentence is gone > I opine that even the baseline rule is too difficult to apply on > the fly (though your practical experience as a speaker may prove > me wrong -- are you speaking from experience or from principle), and > the same goes for the self-segmentation in general. (Self-segmentation > is good because it is crucial to unambiguity, but the particular > algorithm is not sufficient to be of help to real-time comprehension.) > Hence the benefit to the namer (or namee) weighs more, and maximizing > the available space for the different morphological classes outweighs > the negative impact of a slight increase in complexity of an already > complicated algorithm. I disagree: you have to consider the job of the listener in a global perspective, that is from the parsing in words to the semantic interpretation. IMO Lojban syntax and in a far greater extend semantic are complicated enough (or you may say just uncommon enough) that to add complexity in the word parsing may make the language much more difficult to use in real time, and in much greater proportion that the amount of added complexity, should the uttered sentences become long or convoluted enough. (like my last one I am sorry to say :-) In other, I would like the word parsing to be trivial enough so that I'll have more time to devote to the syntaxic and semantic interpretation of is what being said. Actually I do think we should strive to simplify the word parsing algorithm, even if that means to restrain the available space of the morphology classes. And this not really a problem, as it touches mainly cmene, the restrictions on the format of cmavo and brivla being already strong enough to be humanly parsable in real time. If it were not for the commonly met resistance in any baseline violation :-), I would even dare to suggest that we remove the multi-stress syllables possibilities in cmene (a pity I can't change font size for that part, I would have put it in 1pt :-). That will make the parsing *much* more simple in a practical perspective, as then we could most of the time very early spot a long cmene or an obvious missing pause. -- Lionel