From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 31 12:38:13 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 31 May 2008 12:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K2Wu4-0004pV-VR for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 12:38:13 -0700 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K2Wtw-0004p9-8L for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 12:38:12 -0700 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so306183wfg.25 for ; Sat, 31 May 2008 12:38:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=j7K9rQhcBtyrwc4ZzsYVLLJXPOlVyKIbPe2hjyBDIMM=; b=pObruGuzTB3Kq2veIHH85njlZ9SjJs8ryzbohnet8f7z09SaogK4W5+9F4rfqduhmI+T7E1TJ4sXtizd1utSZPfQfgX/uhTwy4Od+n/pgUaQxGePdkhFoPkFaM3ploVui7gjqC4naajPjm1NGWy0zeb/eYgGx6xGzo6EkvxMz9s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ES2/xlbNLqzBHBcCzypyKnRglxziATRxnO8pD7YmrKrhS+2aRQC21BREsi3qJKC5ey9i5hlWZsdmgahnjQcwwF4rVZpr33bG070BpbajFcgSs6mocBLlfDqo5DWQ6G63dEk4XixlU6wKVLjgZQ8yQH48/QQ0ysyP6NsjEfp1L2U= Received: by 10.142.207.8 with SMTP id e8mr2353305wfg.195.1212262683054; Sat, 31 May 2008 12:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.50.4 with HTTP; Sat, 31 May 2008 12:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12d58c160805311238x5287ffben49bbc7e4aa18b0f9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 15:38:02 -0400 From: "komfo,amonan" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Fwd: the gismu typos In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0805310930i6bc3744axf656ccc3a599214a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_8446_20432996.1212262683056" References: <2f91285f0805300810i2f7fb929oe927c5434d9b7f93@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160805300852m2f922402n556158970101b80e@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160805300858r60f0659ase172a2f1106e0916@mail.gmail.com> <2f91285f0805310930i6bc3744axf656ccc3a599214a@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 214aabfcb846ecbd X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 628 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: komfoamonan@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_8446_20432996.1212262683056 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Vid Sintef wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM, komfo,amonan > wrote: > > What you lose by doing that is decreased readability/usability of Lojban > > texts written previous to the change. You would, for example, have to > search > > on both variants to research usage examples. > > I think of its analogy to the British vs American English. Dialects arise organically. This would be a command decision to *create* dialects & thereby decrease comprehension (albeit minimally). > But really {spotu} is not a better word than {spofu} -- it's not "jbomau", > it's not easier to > > learn, it doesn't sound better. > > What do you mean by "jbomau"? Why should {spofu} be *more Lojbanic* > than {spotu}? Is "color" more English than "colour"? > The etymology says it has two source words with "t" (tut & rot), and > none with "f". So, how is {spofu} easier to learn than {spotu} from > the perspective of the source languages' speakers? And why should the > former even sound better? I only said that {spotu} is not superior to {spofu}; I wasn't claiming the converse. Also, I don't think for most of us the gismu etymologies are a significant factor in learning the gismu. > Also, strict adherence to the gismu > > construction principles are rendered questionable by the fact that > language > > community sizes have *very* wide error bars. > > But we are a community of a *constructed* language after all. I think you mistook my meaning. I meant that we don't really know how many people speak the source languages; all we have are estimates. Better estimates might produce different weights for the source words. Would they have changed the gismu? Probably not. But it makes me think we shouldn't get hung up on the accuracy of the gismu construction. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan ------=_Part_8446_20432996.1212262683056 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you lose by doing that is decreased readability/usability of Lojban
> texts written previous to the change. You would, for example, have to search
> on both variants to research usage examples.

I think of its analogy to the British vs American English.

Dialects arise organically. This would be a command decision to *create* dialects & thereby decrease comprehension (albeit minimally).

> But really {spotu} is not a better word than {spofu} -- it's not "jbomau", it's not easier to
> learn, it doesn't sound better.

What do you mean by "jbomau"? Why should {spofu} be *more Lojbanic*
than {spotu}? Is "color" more English than "colour"?  
 
The etymology says it has two source words with "t" (tut & rot), and
none with "f". So, how is {spofu} easier to learn than {spotu} from
the perspective of the source languages' speakers? And why should the
former even sound better?

I only said that {spotu} is not superior to {spofu}; I wasn't claiming the converse. Also, I don't think for most of us the gismu etymologies are a significant factor in learning the gismu.

> Also, strict adherence to the gismu
> construction principles are rendered questionable by the fact that language
> community sizes have *very* wide error bars.

But we are a community of a *constructed* language after all.

I think you mistook my meaning. I meant that we don't really know how many people speak the source languages; all we have are estimates. Better estimates might produce different weights for the source words. Would they have changed the gismu? Probably not. But it makes me think we shouldn't get hung up on the accuracy of the gismu construction.

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan
------=_Part_8446_20432996.1212262683056--