From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 19 08:36:38 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0fkz-0004sD-HC for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:36:38 -0700 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.248]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0fkv-0004s1-Mw for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:36:37 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b21so494384ana for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:36:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=PAHiWizPsApXgX3LVMoYU4uwq8TtnfsUmMF/GJfvP0ZUpkh+AyKioIbZayqFt4lxvZFT7HJncqijJmwTx5L7n2iLDofCp/grqlc0IB6uh2+vLtXK2GGHcrVKpur/CQiTODkZX1dt3Y1CHOI81bxZfGE3nPVBxXNPSWAyAZhQixM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=kQwUZRapFI97zykbu0robFtU/GwEyH1HxJE0GLqyFxYauTOf//CCl1cQ++xYHVLf7xF9YDrY+cRRCqBsUdKDT0xOTTTow+Gz9E6CShw7MQ07jRaix2JA11aigNCJaTW3hyx5KqWrYiMwzNqkrYZFeuE+fMiCdJgZHI2hhk4oX2E= Received: by 10.100.9.19 with SMTP id 19mr4400785ani.1182267392297; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.14 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0706190836o1de01a4dk40d0ad23d3fd2e6a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:36:32 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: consonant doubling? In-Reply-To: <925d17560706181832u7135adefp6d4d2ef54f7f33a6@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_30971_8787512.1182267392225" References: <1182179984.4676a290aa1b5@ssl0.ovh.net> <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7DCE@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> <925d17560706180835w6b83c04fl2a2b6eb61f45c3ce@mail.gmail.com> <1182187693.4676c0add509b@ssl0.ovh.net> <2f91285f0706181331k6fcdc0d2vd969ceba51b7aad7@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560706181340y5b36de4en3bcded6701b05ef6@mail.gmail.com> <2f91285f0706181750p455da9a5x88535a22db2dd8a5@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560706181832u7135adefp6d4d2ef54f7f33a6@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Score-Int: 7 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5057 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: picos.picos@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_30971_8787512.1182267392225 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 6/19/07, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > The phonology that they share is not really that simple. There are too > many fricatives, for example. Not to mention consonant clusters, which > both have in abundance. It is simpler than that of natural languages like Danish, French, Hindi, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, or even English. Apparent evidences of such simplicity, at least in Lojban, are: 1) the fact that markings like diacritics, which are prevalent in the description of natural languages' multiplex sounds, are basically non-existent (except when telling that some particular sounds with such markings are permissible); 2) there are no coarticulation and double articulation which are the manifold/complex versions of single/simple articulation; 3) the vowels are straightforward in a way that distinction between the rounded and its unrounded counterpart isn't prescriptive (i.e. roundness is not phonemic in Lojban, unlike e.g. French, where you can't mingle them up)= . That's why I've come to think the phonology of Lojban is relatively simple. Obviously I'm not as experienced a speaker of Lojban as you are; so I'd lik= e to learn more about your argument: In what aspect can the fricatives and consonant clusters in Lojban be said to be abundant? (If fricatives look to be large in number, I think that has to do with the fact that there are more variations of human fricative sound than, say, nasal or approximant, in the first place. Indeed, it is fricatives which ar= e the largest in the IPA consonant chart, approximating to the number of vowels.) > I'm not completely familiar with Esperanto either, but I'm convinced that > > Lojban is linguistically more open than Esperanto can ever be. > > Phonologically, they are very similar. In other aspects, such as grammar > and vocabulary, they are quite different. "Linguistically open", I don't > know. > In other words, Esperanto is linguistically less open and more ideology-/culture-specific. Its grammar is essentially particular/non-optional over e.g. masculine/feminine/epicene, singular/plural, active/passive, etc. (Which is not the case in Lojban, where such precision is optional). Its lexicon is partial to the European languages and closed against the others. (Which is not so in Lojban, where = a linguistically broader range of etymology has contributed to the formation of the root words). My understanding is that the doctrine "Lojban is designed to be as culturally neutral as possible" has been paralleled with a linguistically less closed nature of the language. ------=_Part_30971_8787512.1182267392225 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 6/19/07, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
The phonology that they share is not really that simple. There are too
m= any fricatives, for example. Not to mention consonant clusters, which
bo= th have in abundance.

It is simpler than that of natur= al languages like Danish, French, Hindi, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese= , or even English. Apparent evidences of such simplicity, at least in Lojba= n, are:

1) the fact that markings like diacritics, which are prevalent in t= he description of natural languages' multiplex sounds, are basically no= n-existent (except when telling that some particular sounds with such marki= ngs are permissible);
2) there are no coarticulation and double articulation which are the ma= nifold/complex versions of single/simple articulation;
3) the vowels are= straightforward in a way that distinction between the rounded and its unro= unded counterpart isn't prescriptive ( i.e. roundness is not phonemic in Lojban, unlike e.g. French, where you can= 't mingle them up).

That's why I've come to think the ph= onology of Lojban is relatively simple.

Obviously I'm not as exp= erienced a speaker of Lojban as you are; so I'd like to learn more abou= t your argument: In what aspect can the fricatives and consonant clusters i= n Lojban be said to be abundant?

(If fricatives look to be large in number, I think that has to do w= ith the fact that there are more variations of human fricative sound than, = say, nasal or approximant, in the first place. Indeed, it is fricatives whi= ch are the largest in the IPA consonant chart, approximating to the number = of vowels.)

>= ; I'm not completely familiar with Esperanto either, but I'm convin= ced that
> Lojban is linguistically more open than Esperanto can ever be.
=
Phonologically, they are very similar. In other aspects, such as gramma= r
and vocabulary, they are quite different. "Linguistically open&qu= ot;, I don't know.

In other words, Esperanto is linguistically less= open and more ideology-/culture-specific. Its grammar is essentially parti= cular/non-optional over e.g. masculine/feminine/epicene, singular/plural, a= ctive/passive, etc. (Which is not the case in Lojban, where such precision = is optional). Its lexicon is partial to the European languages and closed a= gainst the others. (Which is not so in Lojban, where a linguistically broad= er range of etymology has contributed to the formation of the root words).

My understanding is that the doctrine "Lojban is designed to b= e as culturally neutral as possible" has been paralleled with a lingui= stically less closed nature of the language. ------=_Part_30971_8787512.1182267392225--