From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Dec 06 12:18:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 20:18:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 13774 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 20:18:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 20:18:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 20:18:31 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-59.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.59]) by lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742211FB8C for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 21:18:29 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Aesthetics Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 20:20:40 -0000 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) In-Reply-To: <7240E02B-08DE-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Nick: > Speaking completely irresponsibly for a change: > > And's argument that not conforming to Latin alphabet conventions when > writing in the latin alphabet is not utterly bogus > > But reading Lojban is hard enough work already without introducing > *some* signposts. > ..imU'ileda'inunago'ikeinodafAntelenurojbOprecucIskataitu'adei > > I have favoured using braces to help out in complex structures. Yes, we > already have phonetic punctuation. But like I say, it's hard enough > already. This got vetoed when I did it in the introductory prose to the > two books, though. Which I accept, since they are exemplars of Standard > Lojban, and the optional punctuations have never been considered > Standard I have in the past been quite shocked at your use of punctuation, e.g. guillemets, because it looks like a violation of audiovisual isomorphism. The Lojban philosophy was that all punctuation should be speakable, so if we write unspeakable punctuation, we aren't testing that design feature properly. > When I write lojban, I use lots of linebreaks and lots of indentation. > For the same reason I think that too much of a concession to all but the beginner. A language should not be so difficult that it requires such drastic measures to make it intelligible. My own preference is to omit as much as possible, including all fullstops and most apostrophes, and to separate sentences with a bit of extra white space. I am quite content to consider baseline- conformant any orthography that conforms to basic AV isomorphism. Requirement of conformity to a more narrow prescription seems merely conformity for conformity's sake. Like xorxes, I don't really notice orthographic variants -- certainly not as any kind of impediment. (But perhaps this is because reading Lojban in any orthography is so difficult for me.) --And.