Received: from mail-ey0-f189.google.com ([209.85.215.189]:35539)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCL9oD_BBoE4Crxag@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SgtzX-0005ZX-IO; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:40:57 -0700
Received: by eaad14 with SMTP id d14sf3929955eaa.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:40:44 -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=ATK3QmjlU7m5k6/L55Lnuf0qYoQHADowPPplCFmqGeI=;
        b=c9woPb+t4IQi24ITduAtqWMnRm5J2Qb09HEu0QbYJpfKarZbjmABmckX+RMa7TiNjG
         hQbcCocQ2MYNxp+psMaIEV7Z5XJRaMeTYEGFkZmeC9M6u6vUZAgZYi49nNpQ5s5JOEKB
         t0MZWi6rXm2lhefqcyzW6uItxvfb6Ka7QxQwY=
Received: by 10.204.155.143 with SMTP id s15mr1002136bkw.3.1340095243955;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.129.85 with SMTP id n21ls4174928bks.6.gmail; Tue, 19 Jun
 2012 01:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.154.133 with SMTP id o5mr2232889bkw.0.1340095242914;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.154.133 with SMTP id o5mr2232888bkw.0.1340095242888;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (mail-lb0-f180.google.com [209.85.217.180])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id iv15si16532945bkc.0.2012.06.19.01.40.42
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.180;
Received: by lbbgj3 with SMTP id gj3so213163lbb.25
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.82.165 with SMTP id j5mr7853285lby.50.1340095242494; Tue,
 19 Jun 2012 01:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.46.36 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGO2uONjCUoXT550jWw98GZgQXrpPpnPiBnjDsmBY50ApHfFGQ@mail.gmail.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>
	<CAGO2uONjCUoXT550jWw98GZgQXrpPpnPiBnjDsmBY50ApHfFGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 02:40:42 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMKwHj3rcZ2cqT9McV6_-nGFjE9fPDL-FzRfHFtDqcXLj2DC2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for entropy in
 communication ?
From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401f927e4e36804c2cf3c8f
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

--f46d0401f927e4e36804c2cf3c8f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:

> Escaping sarcastically the difficulty does not solve it either.
>

Who's being sarcastic?


> 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 ? >>
>

I can think of no case where "very different concepts are given very near
phonological forms". It is true that there are many cmavo which are very
nearly the same, such as FA, SE, etc., but all of these groupings are very
closely related to each other, differing in very minor ways.

Your own example of the so'V series is not nearly as "different" as you
seem to think. Each of them is a point on the scale All-None, exclusive.
The only difference is where on that scale each is, with so'a being closest
to All, and so'u closest to None.


> 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 ? >>


I don't think so, mainly because, being NATlangs, they weren't designed at
all. I highly doubt that the phonological properties of words were ever
taken into account during the etymological evolution of those languages. In
fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary, as there are many cases
where words that are /extremely/ different concepts have /extremely/
similar phonotactics, such as the English to, too, and two. I would argue
that mistaking, for example, "bow" (either the act-of or the ship-part, but
not the clothing) and "now", or "to" and "too" is much more damaging to
listener comprehension than mistaking "so'a" for "so'u".

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

-- 
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.


--f46d0401f927e4e36804c2cf3c8f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Escape Landsome=
 <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:escaaape@gmail.com" target=3D"_bla=
nk">escaaape@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex">
Escaping sarcastically the difficulty does not solve it either.<br></blockq=
uote><div><br>Who&#39;s being sarcastic?<br>=A0<br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">


I understand that lojbanists use to protect themselves against any<br>
criticism, as in a besieged citadel, but the point still holds : =A0&lt;&lt=
;<br>
if very different concepts are given very near phonological forms,<br>
isn&#39;t this a bad move ? &gt;&gt;<br></blockquote><div><br>I can think o=
f no case where &quot;very different concepts are given very near phonologi=
cal forms&quot;. It is true that there are many cmavo which are very nearly=
 the same, such as FA, SE, etc., but all of these groupings are very closel=
y related to each other, differing in very minor ways.<br>
<br>Your own example of the so&#39;V series is not nearly as &quot;differen=
t&quot; as you seem to think. Each of them is a point on the scale All-None=
, exclusive. The only difference is where on that scale each is, with so&#3=
9;a being closest to All, and so&#39;u closest to None.<br>
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">

And : &lt;&lt; Does not the fact natlangs do not have this problem generall=
y<br>
speaking imply that they are more well designed than lojban on this<br>
particular point ? &gt;&gt;</blockquote></div><br>I don&#39;t think so, mai=
nly because, being NATlangs, they weren&#39;t designed at all. I highly dou=
bt that the phonological properties of words were ever taken into account d=
uring the etymological evolution of those languages. In fact, there is ampl=
e evidence to the contrary, as there are many cases where words that are /e=
xtremely/ different concepts have /extremely/ similar phonotactics, such as=
 the English to, too, and two. I would argue that mistaking, for example, &=
quot;bow&quot; (either the act-of or the ship-part, but not the clothing) a=
nd &quot;now&quot;, or &quot;to&quot; and &quot;too&quot; is much more dama=
ging to listener comprehension than mistaking &quot;so&#39;a&quot; for &quo=
t;so&#39;u&quot;.<br clear=3D"all">
<br>-- <br>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e .aionys.<br><br>.i.e&#39;ucai ko cmima lo piln=
o be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo&#39;o<br>(Come to the Dot Side! Lu=
ke, I am your father. :D )<br><br>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



--f46d0401f927e4e36804c2cf3c8f--