Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]:42011)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCKOXn8wTEIGxgf8EGgS0oqdU@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Sgvx9-0006DC-QB; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:46:41 -0700
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56sf6518719yhq.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version: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=qhxaRXVvRUqRLa4aotx3yp2abpRvYeqfOuqPfl4iPIU=;
        b=0eTE/o1ZxTeBVXD8stBPOprst6zoTMBa5z29Kj6q5VxJ3uiNlHfng9kZAbZaB+2Wmi
         7tf+wh0VAZfSV2WD9EtHasTzen89Q2Ke2LwVB9JLf0AyVrnTs4Nt90TF2PdkCf1p29UJ
         2Vaw0KLmESwiQnDV80H5O4Utn7hP1DLY/Bj8U=
Received: by 10.68.229.132 with SMTP id sq4mr1952529pbc.18.1340102785098;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.233.8 with SMTP id ts8ls16116087pbc.7.gmail; Tue, 19 Jun
 2012 03:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.235.37 with SMTP id uj5mr1936463pbc.13.1340102784488;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <eddd7913-ac3b-4ec2-a72b-9f199852776b@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGO2uOPcMjNogyRO8Wi-v+swm60xLR8X21=aykzmcMOh51e0-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGO2uOPcMjNogyRO8Wi-v+swm60xLR8X21=aykzmcMOh51e0-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for entropy in communication ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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="----=_Part_1359_29310088.1340102783585"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_1359_29310088.1340102783585
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:52:59 PM UTC+4, Escape Landsome wrote:
>
> Coi rodo, 
>
> in a noisy verbal interaction, for instance, on a phone call (but this 
> applies to any case, indeed), it is good for communication that the 
> elements of signal can be easily distinguished, so as to avoid 
> reception errors. 
>
> This is achieved by natlangs, by sparsing all the existing words (for 
> instance, adverbs) in such a "morphologic space" that has very few 
> collisions.   For instance, the english words for "few", "many", "a 
> lot" and "none" are phonologically very different of each other, so 
> there is little chance you could confuse them by hearing them on a 
> deficient phone. 
>

Yes, but here comes another problem. Memorising  "so'V" takes less time 
than  "few", "many", "a 
lot" and "none" cuz they are ... phonologically very different of each 
other!

>
> But this is not the case of lojban words, for instance so'a, so'e, 
> so'i, so'o etc. are very near of each other, and, assuming you don't 
> hear well the last vowel, you could infer something very far from what 
> was intended by the other speaker. 
>
I believe that most Chinese words sound the same for an ordinary English 
speaker because the latter is just not used to it's phonology.
But still Chinese is the language with which you can send people to outer 
space. Does it mean that this language is bad?
Let's get rid of such subtle differences in LoCCan 3.
But then other people will appear and say that <l> and <r> sound the same 
for them.
<m> and <n> sound the same. In LoCCan ~10.0 we'll have <p,t,k,m,a,i,u> 
sounds  only.
Is it what we want?

Why not try pronouncing {so'i} and  {so'e} more carefully than in English?
Chinese phonology requires "singing" sounds because of tones (at least 
that's how many Europeans perceive it).
So why not doing the same in Lojban?

Am I not right about LoCCan 3? May be all cmavo should have the form 
CVCCV/CCVCV?


> So, is not that something that is annoying ? 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/_C5jgoISjYoJ.
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.


------=_Part_1359_29310088.1340102783585
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br>On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:52:59 PM UTC+4, Escape Landsome wrote:<block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-le=
ft: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Coi rodo,
<br>
<br>in a noisy verbal interaction, for instance, on a phone call (but this
<br>applies to any case, indeed), it is good for communication that the
<br>elements of signal can be easily distinguished, so as to avoid
<br>reception errors.
<br>
<br>This is achieved by natlangs, by sparsing all the existing words (for
<br>instance, adverbs) in such a "morphologic space" that has very few
<br>collisions. &nbsp; For instance, the english words for "few", "many", "=
a
<br>lot" and "none" are phonologically very different of each other, so
<br>there is little chance you could confuse them by hearing them on a
<br>deficient phone.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, but here comes another problem. M=
emorising &nbsp;"so'V" takes less time than &nbsp;"few", "many", "a&nbsp;</=
div><div>lot" and "none" cuz they are ... phonologically very different of =
each other!</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margi=
n-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>But this is not the case of lojban words, for instance so'a, so'e,
<br>so'i, so'o etc. are very near of each other, and, assuming you don't
<br>hear well the last vowel, you could infer something very far from what
<br>was intended by the other speaker.
<br></blockquote><div>I believe that most Chinese words sound the same for =
an ordinary English speaker because the latter is just not used to it's pho=
nology.</div><div>But still Chinese is the language with which you can send=
 people to outer space. Does it mean that this language is bad?<br>Let's ge=
t rid of such subtle differences in LoCCan 3.</div><div>But then other peop=
le will appear and say that &lt;l&gt; and &lt;r&gt; sound the same for them=
.</div><div>&lt;m&gt; and &lt;n&gt; sound the same. In LoCCan ~10.0 we'll h=
ave &lt;p,t,k,m,a,i,u&gt; sounds &nbsp;only.</div><div>Is it what we want?<=
/div><div><br></div><div>Why not try pronouncing {so'i} and &nbsp;{so'e} mo=
re carefully than in English?</div><div>Chinese phonology&nbsp;requires "si=
nging" sounds because of tones (at least that's how many Europeans perceive=
 it).</div><div>So why not doing the same in Lojban?</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>Am I not right about LoCCan 3? May be all cmavo should have the form CVC=
CV/CCVCV?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>So, is not that something that is annoying ?&nbsp;<br></blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/_C5jgoISjYoJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/_C=
5jgoISjYoJ</a>.<br />=20
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 />



------=_Part_1359_29310088.1340102783585--