Received: from mail-pb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]:64607)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMGclZyxExCp-Iv_BBoEAMEcqg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Shewy-0004Gm-65; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:49:28 -0700
Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2sf1564191pbb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:49:14 -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=yC8jE9dwmhijp68kcmXqARGLSvjkfzlS/E2cO8r2Gck=;
        b=QF/guO7ojh+TyzsIOBSqUii4A6zj+d9pi8MD9o6gyVduv+j3tFT7jOO3Rde8dlW/M7
         LIKoz94k0YtC0M4IhQV62iKjNx6adQt5YXAg/40iM5q+wmQaa1guhM094OMLzEWjA5UP
         yNJ4iEVcvKUZdMwyexPeYbgapc/83ogPvgTrk=
Received: by 10.236.157.166 with SMTP id o26mr1862358yhk.10.1340275753791;
        Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.138.163 with SMTP id a23ls493135yhj.4.gmail; Thu, 21 Jun
 2012 03:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.73.131 with SMTP id v3mr48837969yhd.6.1340275752783;
        Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.73.131 with SMTP id v3mr48837967yhd.6.1340275752773;
        Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f180.google.com (mail-gg0-f180.google.com [209.85.161.180])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b73si18477304yhh.4.2012.06.21.03.49.12
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.180;
Received: by ggnf1 with SMTP id f1so275777ggn.25
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.237.72 with SMTP id va8mr6356787igc.17.1340275752450; Thu,
 21 Jun 2012 03:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.15.74 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9cb9e4c0-f3fa-4183-8582-f14de670148c@googlegroups.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>
	<CAMKwHj1VjKh3wPefa3gqbQz39VDA=aFT1zgVT4s-8Lbz_z__eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGO2uONCqnvYm89YOhuVPxydRfrZazJrwDDe3B6YcVuTjvvnXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5fbb3fd1-8c00-42a4-9dac-e9889e69757f@googlegroups.com>
	<CAGO2uOO0aMRZCC_p4ijBtyJRnCbsuB45UNDvvDs_dTe=SxdTEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<000eea56-0a1e-4f54-8862-3cc817d539e1@googlegroups.com>
	<CAGO2uOPXNqkxWY3yDWEUWdDaTTGmjq_w=720JwHiVHswkaifnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9cb9e4c0-f3fa-4183-8582-f14de670148c@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:49:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGO2uOPfj=uf4B1UcryaRuzmdnHsvuOZgs_BK5k=XnjK+HydyQ@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 209.85.161.180 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
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

We have no reason to get upset because on ONE PARTICULAR point
natlangs behave better than lojban.

There is even a chance that lojban can be amended in a way it behaves
better then natlangs after the amendment.

Suppose for instance we are given a new consonant "q", one could state
that from now there is a strict equivalence between the phonological
sequences

"a" and "aqa"

"e" and "eqe"

"i" and "iqi"

"o" and "oqo"

"u" and "uqu"

Thus, so'a and so'e can be confused in a noisy environement, but
saying so'aqa ou so'eqe would avoid that.

This is a simple example to show you that discussing a drawback of
lojban does not mean being mean towards it, rather it is what is
expected from anybody here : that is, being scientific and examine
closely and open-mindedly any problem.

[I don't think the solution I proposed is a good one, either.   But at
least it shows this is no dead-end street question.   And also we've
no need to be aggressive.   Meanwhile, natlangs are still better than
lojban on the entropy topic]

-- 
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.