From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Dec 26 19:15:04 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:15:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J7jD6-0000Ig-1F for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:15:04 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.190]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J7jD0-0000HG-Da for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:15:03 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so1994300rvf.46 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:14:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=XTO3e91UrZyYSc+5pOy79JIs4MPhcirftNWct0sDRvI=; b=m/2M8k8yLJY4ZWoc7nOur5pbJsmmo9eCX053tyKM5rtimRLdLM5k2p48YeN3xPhSA61MPIuID106KuyyffhPKazkMsSstMGELGgrgEKmjcGbF7BJaPvmLImd8Oy37TtiRMgy966pi9tvTvhn4EIu0OUCp4tVjNYzRnVzQZEjUzE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dWAASQh0LVBYdtgt2cXaIxGm1Vu9ALBesD5BM/tWkW29sPLutzKoFgOVx3hNxRSI2D2Eu58kk4twZnDFFqP1FGVLLByZyxyjon4io9Eo/UZL8Cha8pnWNaOWvWuickd2uRlULMmgeUWBrf9Xb77JGaOpXTuK9LbSO9NFw1wSKu0= Received: by 10.141.20.7 with SMTP id x7mr3744263rvi.61.1198725297276; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:14:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.5.3 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:14:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:14:57 -0500 From: "Matt Arnold" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Orthography In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 58 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Dec 26, 2007 5:55 PM, Danny wrote: > Is there much of a push for alternative scripts for Lojban? I have > been particularly interested in learning about using Tengwar instead > of the more traditional Latin script. There has not been a push, but there has been playing around. Here's a forwarded thread about the D'ni orthography for Lojban. The files mentioned here are stored at: http://picasaweb.google.com/matt.mattarn/Lojban Next, I'll hunt up my own little toy orthography for Lojban. -Eppcott Forwarded conversation Subject: [lojban] D'ni orthography for Lojban ------------------------ From: Jon MacLeod Date: Nov 9, 2006 5:50 PM To: lojban-list@lojban.org I would like to know what Lojbanistan thinks of the D'ni orthography I am submitting, I am including to files- one with the transliteration between Lojban letterals and D'ni characters, and the other with an example Lojban text written with these characters- namely, rab.spir.'s translation of the song that never ends. mu'o mi'e .topy'at. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com ---------- From: Yanis Batura Date: Nov 9, 2006 7:51 PM To: Jon MacLeod What I think is that sending a 500 KB letter to everyone isn't the best idea. mi'e .ianis To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. ---------- From: Hugh O'Byrne Date: Nov 10, 2006 12:16 AM To: lojban-list@lojban.org I think Yanis makes a valid point, but I am also going to answer the question asked. I think it's pretty. It looks like it's designed to be easy to write in cursive, adjacent letters join up nicely. That's a good feature. It seems to me that anyone using this for an extended time is likely to make the 'i' shape more rounded, just because it's quicker and easier than drawing corners (making it less 'L' shaped and more 'C' shaped). (The intent may be for the scribe to lift the pen at the end of the top stroke and put it back down near the beginning, but in a hurry, or after they get familiar with making the shapes, I'll bet a lot of people will just keep their pen on the paper because it's easier. For example, which do you find easier to write, cursive or print?) The backward strokes on 'f', 'p', and perhaps 'z', look like they could be tiresome, I imagine after a while a scribe might get sloppy with these, making them into loops perhaps. It is good there are only two different types of feature you have to go back and do after scribbling the 'main' line of the word - the vertical bars, and the short horizontal ticks (like dotting 'i's and crossing 't's); any more than two features, I feel, may be unappealing. Now for my pet crusade. I see some commonalities between symbols for similar sounds: 'v' and 'b' are similar, as are 'c' and 's'. I assume this is intentional, that the visual differences are intended to represent the oral differences. But it does not do this as well as it might: the written distinction between these pairs is the same (presence or absence of a tick), but the differences in sound, and in the shape and use of the mouth, are quite different. So the tick does not, in itself, have a meaning beyond 'some variation on the sound'. Personally, I would find it much more appealing and symmetrical if the tick had a more particular meaning, e.g. 'voiced'. One shape to represent 'p', the same shape with a tick to represent 'b'. A shape for 'c', the same shape with a tick for 'j'. 't' and 'd', 'k' and 'g', maybe even ' (h) and 'y'. As I said, that's my personal crusade. But the observations I make above it, I think may be more relavent to more people. mi'e .xius. -- Good night, and have a rational tomorrow! ---------- From: Hugh O'Byrne Date: Nov 10, 2006 12:21 AM To: lojban-list@lojban.org Yanis did not come up with a workable alternative either, so I would suggest using: www.box.net It is a free service, you can upload any file you want, and get a 'public URL'. You just need to post the URL, and anyone who wishes to see the file, can, free for them also. ---------- From: Hugh O'Byrne Date: Nov 10, 2006 12:46 AM To: lojban-list@lojban.org Oops, I spoke too soon. 'l' and 'n' need different types of vertical bar to distinguish them. When I go back to fill in features of a word, my mind is already moving on the next word; the distinction between 'l' and 'n' looks subtle enough that I suspect my brain may have to stutter back to be sure to make the right type of line, interrupting flow of thought. I haven't actually tried it, and after I've trained in this alphabet, I may not even consciously notice that I'm writing two different types of vertical bar, but, in my mind, I imagine it being a niggling imp in the back of my brain. I stated that it's good there are few features you have to go back for; in my ideal orthography, you'd never have to go back over what you've written. But, this may come at the cost of making the symbols overly large, and perhaps there are benefits to having to 'stutter' - it may keep your thoughts from drifting away, which would be easier if you never had to go back on what you're writing. So, there are issues other than my opinion I would recommend you to consider before making a decision. But, for what it's worth, that's my opinion. ---------- From: Matt Arnold Date: Nov 10, 2006 12:09 PM To: lojban-list@lojban.org It looks beautiful. -Eppcott ---------- From: Jon MacLeod Date: Nov 10, 2006 5:15 PM To: lojban-list@lojban.org I apologize if I caused anyone distress, I did not realize that the size of the document was an issue. -Jon Jones "I have a brain, I've just lost my mind." -Ian McLeod "As a percentage of total universal knowledge, what I know is statistically insignificant." - me -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version 3.12 GCS>$ d+(++) s++:-- a- C++ UL P L++>+++++ !E W+(++) N+ o? K- !w---- O- M-(+)@ V? PS+++ PE- Y+ PGP- t+ !5-- X(+) R+ !tv-- b+++ DI+ D+ G e* h+* r+(++) y+(++) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited ---------- From: Jon MacLeod Date: Nov 10, 2006 5:36 PM To: lojban-list@lojban.org The D'ni characters are meant to written with the continous line done first, then to go back through the word and put in the accents (ticks) and flags (vertical lines). Writing the wors as such may be odd at first, but it does enable someone to scribble something in D'ni script rather quickly. The D'ni language has 24 different characters, 11 with accented versions (the xy. and by., for example), and has 35 individual sounds. I honestly don't know why the creators of the Myst series of games decided to attach a certain symbol to a certain phoneme, I just know which one's are which. You can have a look for yourself at the whole D'ni character set and teir attached phonemes at this page: http://linguists.bahro.com/domahreh/lessons/lesson02.html You'll have to download the D'ni font to actually see the characters, that's located here: http://linguists.bahro.com/domahreh/lessons/media/rcd_fonts.zip I don't have anything against altering Lojbanic usage of the D'ni character set to be more correct, such as having the accent mean voiced and accent-less unvoiced, for example- if you are wont to, by all means alter it as you see fit to improve for Lojbanic usage, I would love to see the result, and I'll be more than happy to fix the font mappings to your results. Truth be told, I have my own problem with the current mappings- there is no way to distinguish between emphasized and non-ri vowels, except by underlining them. Possibly using an accent to indicate stress, but that might confuse anyone who actually tried to read it. ---------- From: Hugh O'Byrne Date: Nov 11, 2006 1:10 AM To: lojban-list@lojban.org I kind of figured that was the way it was intended. Just so you know my motivation: I think if a symbol set is going to be widely used, many people are, after time, going to get sloppy about making the precise prescribed shapes. The degree to which that sloppiness affects legibility (specifically, the ability to quickly and with certainty classify different symbols) can be reduced with planning. So, I was trying to anticipate how the characters may change over time. Take, for example, lowercase 'l'. In print, it's a vertical line (perhaps with serifs). In cursive, it's commonly drawn as a tall loop. As such, the cursive 'l' really has a much more fundamental feature in common with the print 'o' than it has with the print 'l'. No-one I know about has confused a cursive 'l' for an 'o', and the two are still quite different in that the 'entry' and 'exit' points are typically at the bottom of the 'l' loop and at the top of the 'o' loop, but this demonstrates the principle of how sloppiness can affect the characteristics of symbols. Anticipating how it is likely to manifest itself could guide in the design of a symbol set whose features are more resistant to sloppines. Ah. I did not realise that the typeface came from a game. I wonder if copyright is an issue. I think if a new alphabet is to be chosen for Lojban, it must have design considerations which are compatible and harmonious with Lojban. The first consideration I can think of is that it should be robust against time; i.e. robust against sloppiness. Features which may get smeared or de-emphasised in haste should, as much as possible, retain as much recognisability as possible, and be as easily distinguised from other smeared features as possible. The second design consideration I would put forward is orthogonality (e.g. that the presence/absence of the accent in a symbol correspond to a *particular* feature of the corresponding phoneme, e.g. whether the phoneme is voiced or not). There are interesting consequences and interplays to take into consideration. I find it quite fascinating. It elicits some deep thinking on how exactly perception works, when one explores how one symbol can be made 'as different as possible' from another symbol, within rules. Omniglot (http://www.omniglot.com/) is a good place to explore shapes of letters. If you're interested in alphabets and orthographies, a visit there is highly recommended. And, of course, the IPA ( http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/ipa/fullchart.html) is a valuable resource for classifying the other end of the orthography: the phones and phonemes (different words! different concepts!) that are represented by the shapes on the page. :) aha, you'll get me in trouble. I know better than to try and claim I am 'correct' on this issue. I express opinions. Others will express other opinions. History will decide which opinions are more valid. Or it won't. I have mused on matters of orthography for years, but I'm still not sure my expertise is up to the high standard I have set for a 'perfect alphabet'. I guess I should get started trying. I like that sentiment. It makes me more eager to share what little expertise I have, and collaborate with those whose goal is also to contribute to the collective knowledge. ---------- From: Jon MacLeod Date: Nov 11, 2006 5:10 PM To: lojban-list@lojban.org I'll find out. I actually considered revising the linkage between the sounds and symbols myself, but I have absolutely no experience in the matter, however poorly you may do, I have no doubt it would be better than my attempt. I do believe that some form of alteration would be a good idea. .ui I must say that the quote orginates from the saying "A wise man knows that he knows nothing." And is meant in a sarcastically humorous tone- even it is a factual statement. (I like using big wors- they're more presice.) mi'e .topy'at.