From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 18 17:50:53 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0Rvm-0001p0-PT for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:51 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.236]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0Rvh-0001oZ-3d for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:49 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t11so1904893wxc for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:43 -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=Ni2Ub0ISXp5eYYqdaxVlwcM4ULhOQIjY25bLGdX0JhSmHJsBvM6g4XfBPjyk8Bu69xAVsSM7+M99GqYegCMH0Bn8v7uJvhNruJUojyHTf3AxaM2f9TBPksAqznoKwqRg9TxkGhlj6GCAcDUvi0GtOBaUNNb89fDCHP6mN1I4pqw= 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=TzdR5T9Rv93i4mP+Vy3dNqhtVKM50MuGxkfESJTLoIzcJOJ7DeagcHRjw+qQmttltUJ1MU+C9lL/fF9aKcJYSmBvLB1vD8nkC5avJyHMmFBTo4xgtP+2dXaQiVaxDqD1/jYI++T3FBRm+uZkhmfUSgftkx8d1inG4SCI6WuZUPc= Received: by 10.70.113.15 with SMTP id l15mr10627949wxc.1182214243810; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.14 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0706181750p455da9a5x88535a22db2dd8a5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:50:43 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: consonant doubling? In-Reply-To: <925d17560706181340y5b36de4en3bcded6701b05ef6@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_25176_29414317.1182214243739" 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> X-Spam-Score: 0.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: 5 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5043 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_25176_29414317.1182214243739 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 6/18/07, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > Esperanto is meant to segregate/alienate people of particular linguistic > backgrouinds? > > In fact, the phonology system of Esperanto is pretty similar to that of > Lojban. They have practically the exact same phoneme set: the only > difference is that Esperanto doesn't have {y}, and it considers {dj}, > {ts} and {tc} single phonemes. I'm not completely certain, but I think > Lojban's phoneme set was copied from Esperanto. As for clusters, > Espeanto does allow some things that Lojban doesn't, but for the most > part it is Lojban that allows the most monstruous clusters. I meant Esperanto's stronger adhesion to the Romance languages in various aspects. People whose native tongue is one of the Romances would find Esperanto easy to learn more than Thai or Arabic speakers would. And I thin= k that is an indication of the alienative nature of Esperanto, while being called an international auxiliary language; its internationality and auxiliariness, on the linguistic level, are actually limited. Particularly the orthography of Esperanto can be more outlandish than that of Lojban. And while presumably few people would have difficulty in typing in Lojban, many would find it awkward to do the same task in Esperanto for the first time (the character set of Esperanto is far less universal than that of Lojban). If the phonologies of Esperanto and Lojban look alike, that's not necessarily because the designers of one side wanted to copy the other's, but rather because when you simplify a phonology it does gain more generality; the more things get simplified for the same purpose, the more they become alike. I'm not completely familiar with Esperanto either, but I'm convinced that Lojban is linguistically more open than Esperanto can ever be. ------=_Part_25176_29414317.1182214243739 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 6/18/07, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
Esperanto is meant to segregate/alienate people of particular linguisticbackgrouinds?

In fact, the phonology system of Esperanto is pretty = similar to that of
Lojban. They have practically the exact same phoneme = set: the only
difference is that Esperanto doesn't have {y}, and it considers {dj= },
{ts} and {tc} single phonemes. I'm not completely certain, but I = think
Lojban's phoneme set was copied from Esperanto. As for cluster= s,
Espeanto does allow some things that Lojban doesn't, but for the mo= st
part it is Lojban that allows the most monstruous clusters.

I meant Esperanto's stronger adhesion to the Romance langua= ges in various aspects. People whose native tongue is one of the Romances w= ould find Esperanto easy to learn more than Thai or Arabic speakers would. = And I think that is an indication of the alienative nature of Esperanto, wh= ile being called an=20 international auxiliary language= ; its internationality and auxiliariness, on the linguistic level, are actu= ally limited.

Particularly the orthography of Esperanto can be more = outlandish than that of Lojban. And while presumably few people would have = difficulty in typing in Lojban, many would find it awkward to do the same t= ask in Esperanto for the first time (the character set of Esperanto is far = less universal than that of Lojban).

If the phonologies of Esperanto and Lojban look alike, that&= #39;s not necessarily because the designers of one side wanted to copy the other's, but rather because = when you simplify a phonology it does gain more generality; the more things= get simplified for the same purpose, the more they become alike.

I'm not completely familiar with Esperanto either, but I'm = convinced that Lojban is linguistically more open than Esperanto can ever b= e.
------=_Part_25176_29414317.1182214243739--