From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Dec 07 03:03:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Dec 2002 11:03:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 95841 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 11:03:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2002 11:03:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.114) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 11:03:11 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-124.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.124]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8334811E for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 12:03:10 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: cmegadri valfendi preti Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:05:21 -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: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206223513.03a4fec0@pop.east.cox.net> 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 Lojbab: > >It is therefore irrelevant that making the rules even more > >complex will make life even harder for the listener struggling to parse > >in real time. I think the rules could not be simplified to the point > >where they could be used in realtime, unless the entire morphology > >was discarded and redesigned from scratch > > Since real human beings have spoken and understood Lojban is real time > (though Nick at full bore exceeds my capabilities, it is usually because he > is using words I don't recall rather than that I can't break his speech > into words), this sounds like a post-Apollo claim that the moon is really a > lump of green cheese 20 miles up It shouldn't sound like that. As you may have noticed, English doesn't have self-segmentation, yet you converse in it without problems with determining word boundaries. As I said in messages of yesterday, I strongly suspect that with spoken Lojban, as with natural languages, we rely mainly on pragmatics rather than phonology to disambiguate word-boundaries. I acknowledge that I have had almost nil experience of hearing spoken Lojban while you have had a lot, so I may be wrong. --And.