Received: from mail-we0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:36053)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCf1IH_BBoE07QWwA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Sgx7u-0006hb-NG; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:53 -0700
Received: by werm13 with SMTP id m13sf4104041wer.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:35 -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=pBJmLq7H9zriE9vt9wiGROajeUNtldIqPpbxwMbntCI=;
        b=P6Cv9QMTXRv3D3i7WMcgVeo/oLPwA/rMuMUWIDB66b+MlSr0z8jzv2PjuRd8cBxYtv
         k81DaeekM3EWzH2jzBIMKPU9ksKzFhlQ2Yz+HpLOc9SJA+LgjBK73sbSaEJZ/8StozEQ
         9Kqoi+xrhe5lsf+WO3Vj02jh8G9OS7kCleMx0=
Received: by 10.204.155.88 with SMTP id r24mr16549bkw.6.1340107295206;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.129.85 with SMTP id n21ls4307710bks.6.gmail; Tue, 19 Jun
 2012 05:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.149.210 with SMTP id u18mr2333718bkv.1.1340107294224;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.149.210 with SMTP id u18mr2333717bkv.1.1340107294200;
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (mail-lb0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id iv15si16895406bkc.0.2012.06.19.05.01.34
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.171;
Received: by lbom4 with SMTP id m4so12400139lbo.16
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.108.178 with SMTP id hl18mr18164281lab.11.1340107293720;
 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.46.36 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGO2uOMAatDoKcdk+1ti46mQ5fudXtPUTL3R1pHgUZ-LODrB6Q@mail.gmail.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>
	<CAGO2uOMAatDoKcdk+1ti46mQ5fudXtPUTL3R1pHgUZ-LODrB6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:01:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMKwHj1VjKh3wPefa3gqbQz39VDA=aFT1zgVT4s-8Lbz_z__eA@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 209.85.217.171 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=bcaec54c513a33fff404c2d20b53
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.6
X-Spam_score_int: -5
X-Spam_bar: /

--bcaec54c513a33fff404c2d20b53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:

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

I contend that confusing words of separate "paradigms" is worse.

Moreover, I contend that you are making a mountain out a molehill, as such
problems as you are calling attention to are both rare and easily fixed.

The pronunciation of Lojban's vowels were specifically chosen to be as
unlike in sound to the others as possible. .abu sounds nothing like .obu,
.ebu sounds nothing like .ibu, and so on. In light of this, I submit that
the only case where confusion between which of a series is the one that was
said is even likely is when the distincting vowel is completely unheard,
and in such a case as that, either the listener would either attempt to
make an educated guess as to which of the series was most likely to have
been the spoken one based upon the context of the utterance it was a part
of, or alternatively asking the speaker to repeat that particular word.

If you do not understand a person, it is a simple matter to ask for
clarification.

-- 
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.


--bcaec54c513a33fff404c2d20b53
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:31 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">
<div class=3D"im">&gt; Well, a lot of &quot;words&quot; in Chinese are phon=
ologically identical, but the problem is solved by not using a given word i=
n isolation but rather embedded in a cloud of distinctive other words. =A0W=
hen a Chinese speaks of shrimp, for example, the expression he uses transla=
tes as something like &quot;shrimp shrimp [a different word] fish bug&quot;=
 (from memory, details may vary, though not the principle).<br>

<br>
</div>True, that is, with redundancy the code can convey information more<b=
r>
securely... =A0 This is well known in information theory.<br>
<br>
Please, consider the notion of paradigm. =A0A paradigm is a set of<br>
options or choices you can choose one within the set. =A0 If there is<br>
ambiguity between two words that are not in the same paradigm, this is<br>
not as annoying as if the ambiguit lies between two words of the same<br>
paradigm, not even mentioning the case of two opposite words !<br>
<br>
For instance, in english, you could confound &quot;none&quot; and &quot;nun=
&quot;, or<br>
&quot;all&quot; and &quot;owl&quot;, but at least there&#39;s no chance to =
confound &quot;all&quot; and<br>
&quot;none&quot;, AND THAT IS THE IMPORTANT THING !<br></blockquote></div><=
br>I contend that confusing words of separate &quot;paradigms&quot; is wors=
e.<br><br>Moreover, I contend that you are making a mountain out a molehill=
, as such problems as you are calling attention to are both rare and easily=
 fixed.<br>
<br>The pronunciation of Lojban&#39;s vowels were specifically chosen to be=
 as unlike in sound to the others as possible. .abu sounds nothing like .ob=
u, .ebu sounds nothing like .ibu, and so on. In light of this, I submit tha=
t the only case where confusion between which of a series is the one that w=
as said is even likely is when the distincting vowel is completely unheard,=
 and in such a case as that, either the listener would either attempt to ma=
ke an educated guess as to which of the series was most likely to have been=
 the spoken one based upon the context of the utterance it was a part of, o=
r alternatively asking the speaker to repeat that particular word.<br>
<br>If you do not understand a person, it is a simple matter to ask for cla=
rification.<br><br>-- <br>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e .aionys.<br><br>.i.e&#39;ucai k=
o cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo&#39;o<br>(Come to t=
he Dot Side! Luke, 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 />



--bcaec54c513a33fff404c2d20b53--