Received: from mail-gg0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:35244)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCKOXn8wTEIKVjP8EGgS0fsqH@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1ShfuC-0004n6-O8; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:50:38 -0700
Received: by ggke5 with SMTP id e5sf585187ggk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:50:26 -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=K7NNPMFeLpOBXT79OnjAaK5C0CJFxl6wiyM39Rp4eK4=;
        b=tqnmgLJikY0JqXRS2rAvzqaEgW6CAhFD3Dzu4RRGl9aCoqeedMPTTi4s2B+0TuSpQ1
         ezlvBpNkCDeBvX7iAZnYk+re0gRFZula3ShM2SRxJRqYjTBYG+1ZNs3MrxZOX+9To+Ch
         hNr2GVPLz9NEzZv4OFE/GtA7YHKpGMzriS8jA=
Received: by 10.52.173.49 with SMTP id bh17mr395360vdc.2.1340279426406;
        Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.71.2 with SMTP id q2ls112677vdu.7.gmail; Thu, 21 Jun 2012
 04:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.71.7 with SMTP id q7mr512255vdu.20.1340279424982;
        Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <2f900887-e876-432b-b78b-bedd33a4edb7@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGO2uOPfj=uf4B1UcryaRuzmdnHsvuOZgs_BK5k=XnjK+HydyQ@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>
 <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>
 <CAGO2uOPfj=uf4B1UcryaRuzmdnHsvuOZgs_BK5k=XnjK+HydyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [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_305_11036782.1340279424572"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_305_11036782.1340279424572
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:49:12 PM UTC+4, Escape Landsome wrote:
>
> 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" 
>
>
Oh. If you replace VqV with V3 (in Mandarine third tone, where V - vowel) 
that would be quite reasonable too.
 

> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/2rI2wtSfKkwJ.
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_305_11036782.1340279424572
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:49:12 PM UTC+4, Escape Landsome wrote:=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">We have no reason to get upset=
 because on ONE PARTICULAR point
<br>natlangs behave better than lojban.
<br>
<br>There is even a chance that lojban can be amended in a way it behaves
<br>better then natlangs after the amendment.
<br>
<br>Suppose for instance we are given a new consonant "q", one could state
<br>that from now there is a strict equivalence between the phonological
<br>sequences
<br>
<br>"a" and "aqa"
<br>
<br>"e" and "eqe"
<br>
<br>"i" and "iqi"
<br>
<br>"o" and "oqo"
<br>
<br>"u" and "uqu"
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh. If you replace VqV with V3 (in Man=
darine third tone, where V - vowel) that would be quite reasonable too.</di=
v><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;mar=
gin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Thus, so'a =
and so'e can be confused in a noisy environement, but
<br>saying so'aqa ou so'eqe would avoid that.
<br>
<br>This is a simple example to show you that discussing a drawback of
<br>lojban does not mean being mean towards it, rather it is what is
<br>expected from anybody here : that is, being scientific and examine
<br>closely and open-mindedly any problem.
<br>
<br>[I don't think the solution I proposed is a good one, either. &nbsp; Bu=
t at
<br>least it shows this is no dead-end street question. &nbsp; And also we'=
ve
<br>no need to be aggressive. &nbsp; Meanwhile, natlangs are still better t=
han
<br>lojban on the entropy topic]
<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/-/2rI2wtSfKkwJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/2r=
I2wtSfKkwJ</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_305_11036782.1340279424572--