Received: from mail-vb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:42285)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMGclZyxExCXxoH_BBoEMru-7w@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Sgwes-0006Zx-Bq; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:31:44 -0700
Received: by vbzb23 with SMTP id b23sf6482460vbz.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:31:36 -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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=DdQYaITwkmxY3vA6HpMpYtLAvCKJUm5m+cSOuAWIWUI=;
        b=1v5fj9wF2i+B+bqWp9VQb8p5+hMgLC1Pbghgmsww75SM/hgdZ5EtZ2Y5KgTAM88q6g
         v2RI6kgoYAJmLK1mnaXaj1menSy8h7gE3xWrTWJu1W8MqsJcXvEoTAyqf8+ldOKIqIyU
         N3ENlMtQNgIaVw18frtOLh/eBjhXQXvfYamvY=
Received: by 10.236.115.198 with SMTP id e46mr965007yhh.16.1340105495831;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.138.163 with SMTP id a23ls7435466yhj.4.gmail; Tue, 19 Jun
 2012 04:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.157.1 with SMTP id n1mr6872939yhk.1.1340105494228;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.157.1 with SMTP id n1mr6872938yhk.1.1340105494212;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f180.google.com (mail-yx0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z27si14499152yhn.2.2012.06.19.04.31.34
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.180;
Received: by mail-yx0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q6so6351522yen.39
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.51.132 with SMTP id k4mr728859igo.17.1340105493910; Tue, 19
 Jun 2012 04:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.15.74 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <74243394-F7AA-46CD-B731-21E95827CE6B@yahoo.com>
References: <CAGO2uOPcMjNogyRO8Wi-v+swm60xLR8X21=aykzmcMOh51e0-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<eddd7913-ac3b-4ec2-a72b-9f199852776b@googlegroups.com>
	<CAGO2uONMoF1BfuR+wJNn7y9ecjKg8PTeNHOp8J03JGAwmp5bnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<74243394-F7AA-46CD-B731-21E95827CE6B@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:31:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGO2uOMAatDoKcdk+1ti46mQ5fudXtPUTL3R1pHgUZ-LODrB6Q@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 209.85.213.180 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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

> Well, a lot of "words" in Chinese are phonologically identical, but the p=
roblem is solved by not using a given word in isolation but rather embedded=
 in a cloud of distinctive other words. =A0When a Chinese speaks of shrimp,=
 for example, the expression he uses translates as something like "shrimp s=
hrimp [a different word] fish bug" (from memory, details may vary, though n=
ot the principle).

True, that is, with redundancy the code can convey information more
securely...   This is well known in information theory.

Please, consider the notion of paradigm.  A paradigm is a set of
options or choices you can choose one within the set.   If there is
ambiguity between two words that are not in the same paradigm, this is
not as annoying as if the ambiguit lies between two words of the same
paradigm, not even mentioning the case of two opposite words !

For instance, in english, you could confound "none" and "nun", or
"all" and "owl", but at least there's no chance to confound "all" and
"none", AND THAT IS THE IMPORTANT THING !

--=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.