Received: from mail-pb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]:53305) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SgwY2-0006Tw-4I; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:24:45 -0700 Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2sf7380469pbb.16 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:24:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-id:x-yahoo-newman-property :x-ymail-osg:x-yahoo-smtp:references:in-reply-to :x-apple-yahoo-original-message-folder:mime-version:message-id :x-mailer:from:x-apple-yahoo-replied-msgid:subject:date: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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dgny6D0aqwwOLpgamrIkMRDH4BnW2jsaRtcSzz7t0jc=; b=NpkDMUcN98b2AApG+ljfJl1WZ+0AKzOpdb6S4U48UvOnA4ccyXnuY23TKwFzq/3XRd MZNZBIJPw2xbm3Jb8GSV13F98j2iCQ4Al6DlCPQnSxz2bs1+iouSxUSTiIqEYkUAF3Uf k1SI2/6uT3P+5QRHlzI07kVZ7emaPn9GvTU4I= Received: by 10.68.200.170 with SMTP id jt10mr1955090pbc.15.1340105072331; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:24:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.194.199 with SMTP id hy7ls1656067pbc.9.gmail; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.234.38 with SMTP id ub6mr18707773pbc.2.1340105071703; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.234.38 with SMTP id ub6mr18707772pbc.2.1340105071693; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm7-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm7-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com. [98.139.91.192]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id iq5si4910535pbc.1.2012.06.19.04.24.31; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.91.192 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.91.192; Received: from [98.139.91.68] by nm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2012 11:24:31 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.14] by tm8.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2012 11:24:31 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1014.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2012 11:24:31 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 314147.6097.bm@omp1014.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 22826 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2012 11:24:30 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: DjOYLc4VM1nklOmw9vCtp.w9Xv_VSHkxuRB.6u465DfMvwy fXFjxSbWImY7qx6MsYVRoG3FlF5YNdXciSCmlH1UR2NNcqPMm2uO8bBTt.Ku 6D3_THpc84lAXlEQ0cAAfWZeK1NvosiJNd5nittnRWpEXfTn.ByRriULJbuT BAmXuKi0sBxLMTzhtAwk6snqVfZnYgnQv8VVcKye0uJV1fR8Mo2CHkFUiRKI bWP9UIdAmAVEeIXX1b11jm5n1VhTh9MQYjC4OUYrntDccIAJhXYkAox318qt ucAsSpnrtrK8AFiXr.RyPgzK46u9pR63Kd9aSr2qr99w2bc5xzw.BokZSWKY neCJZwKMV3yDXYs.W0.mEBcPEILohxswTlkmouWCLIdYGiKRiZ3JDCwbxHsn X2u7mrTQm0026RKHP3hlq4NpCTY7wzYdPK.u7r62jOlfHgkmNYPB9rilNcMm IqjBSxSV3TAbHrPQDFtOrbr8R3I7o_d_9bQfY2oolQp3tzLuGAKQimWv2jPP sojSgXU7gIEVLr3vu1pwFiIoY X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- Received: from [192.168.1.64] (kali9putra@99.92.108.194 with xymcookie) by smtp125-mob.biz.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2012 11:24:30 +0000 UTC References:

In-Reply-To: X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4) Message-Id: <74243394-F7AA-46CD-B731-21E95827CE6B@yahoo.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4) From: "John E. Clifford" X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 2_0_0_48_15004203_ACndi2IAABKbT+BbcQeDq3CGY/g Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for entropy in communication ? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:40:20 -0500 To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.91.192 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Well, a lot of "words" in Chinese are phonologically identical, but the pro= blem is solved by not using a given word in isolation but rather embedded i= n a cloud of distinctive other words. When a Chinese speaks of shrimp, for= example, the expression he uses translates as something like "shrimp shrim= p [a different word] fish bug" (from memory, details may vary, though not t= he principle). The point is that languages have various ways around unclar= ity but it is not obvious what Lojban's are in the cmavo cases, at least. = This matter is scarcely unique to Lojban, even to the point of having been = warned early on: toki pona for "all" is 'ale' and for "no" is 'ala', clearl= y worse than 'ro' and 'no'. Sent from my iPad On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Escape Landsome wrote: >> 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 oute= r >> space. Does it mean that this language is bad? >=20 >=20 > No, you miss the point. >=20 > The problem is not with pronounciation in itself but with *phonemes*. >=20 > Phonemes are defined as smallest units of phonological type that carry > meaning in a double segmentation scheme. >=20 > That is, /b/ and /p/ are english phonemes, not because they're not the > same sounds, but because there is a pair of words such as "bit" / > "pit", and thus it is wise to consider an opposition between them. >=20 > But in other languages, such as chinese, b and p are not distinct phoneme= s. >=20 > Which is no probleme, because Chinese has other meaningful opposition > pairs, such as "plosive" vs "mute", or "nasalized" versus "no-nasal" >=20 > . >=20 > And thus, /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/ /u/ are phonemes in lojban in the > contradistinction set of so'V >=20 > But different words with opposite meanings IN THE SAME PARADIGME > differ form only one phoneme, which is not wise >=20 > --- >=20 > (Also, "a lot", "few", "all" and "none" do not differ only from one > feature in Chinese... but from a lot a differente phonological > feature. We don't care if "all" and "horse" are very near. But we > care this be the case for "all" and "none" !!!) >=20 > --=20 > 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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. >=20 --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.