Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:54355)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMGclZyxExCE5ID_BBoEW9-Y8g@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SgtOE-00057S-Pa; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:02:28 -0700
Received: by vcbfo14 with SMTP id fo14sf6168757vcb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=MDzNxhlz9Y0z5D4eBYcP6gnymaaqR9Lz3ezQFNdVIew=;
        b=fJVkkqrmXWInuQXDxIYxSkz36sxjtuVqXZD3h5iL4TgbFwiGHOH3eS+KhEB6aLD8vT
         zyDoFbZW8sn9MguZkakRmNRs5oZxqh4cOrdUwmK4WXbeYknyuCHB2BSuDA7z3Ee1CNHq
         Imr+LRzzHy6IeMbpsV3Dfz6/DFdOBPd/nEgbM=
Received: by 10.236.115.198 with SMTP id e46mr927738yhh.16.1340092932239;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.128.9 with SMTP id e9ls7315662yhi.9.gmail; Tue, 19 Jun
 2012 01:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.106.8 with SMTP id i8mr9783220anm.6.1340092931353;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.106.8 with SMTP id i8mr9783219anm.6.1340092931338;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f178.google.com (mail-yx0-f178.google.com [209.85.213.178])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v25si7692631yhm.0.2012.06.19.01.02.11
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.178;
Received: by mail-yx0-f178.google.com with SMTP id l6so4385085yen.9
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.104.170 with SMTP id gf10mr254851igb.52.1340092931012; Tue,
 19 Jun 2012 01:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.15.74 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1340045495.92664.YahooMailNeo@web184415.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAGO2uOPcMjNogyRO8Wi-v+swm60xLR8X21=aykzmcMOh51e0-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<fd761f5a-0269-43b7-bd60-7fe8f827c497@googlegroups.com>
	<1340043523.14478.YahooMailNeo@web184406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<1340045495.92664.YahooMailNeo@web184415.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:02:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGO2uONjCUoXT550jWw98GZgQXrpPpnPiBnjDsmBY50ApHfFGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for entropy in
 communication ?
From: Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: escaaape@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=escaaape@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

Escaping sarcastically the difficulty does not solve it either.

I understand that lojbanists use to protect themselves against any
criticism, as in a besieged citadel, but the point still holds :  <<
if very different concepts are given very near phonological forms,
isn't this a bad move ? >>

And : << Does not the fact natlangs do not have this problem generally
speaking imply that they are more well designed than lojban on this
particular point ? >>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.