Received: from mail-gh0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:55718)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBDv3pH_BBoEgogjZQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Si3g4-00017G-4w; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:13:37 -0700
Received: by ghbf16 with SMTP id f16sf1694511ghb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=SaKIUemRsE6WjvIDH4TFL8NONl6dX30sFqiPkNlY5ps=;
        b=DDb3FD0RWpW2TIkJ34WXXpVjcJF5GawqQ7gXu/F49/+XrPy6Gww+zEfH6X3ZPAxQmU
         IlmZEzCcMDR0Wh5C15TBxssPRfWldt0zElTlBSQ4rhfH75miTfbsg7dpfPIeF3UWEizI
         ugkR7JFXvWgBDqGWGqRGrOBffbLlMceie90mo=
Received: by 10.236.37.129 with SMTP id y1mr140963yha.9.1340370799718;
        Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.128.9 with SMTP id e9ls2737554yhi.9.gmail; Fri, 22 Jun
 2012 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.139.5 with SMTP id r5mr85647ann.19.1340370798402;
        Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.139.5 with SMTP id r5mr85646ann.19.1340370798387;
        Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f176.google.com (mail-yx0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b73si19621784yhh.4.2012.06.22.06.13.18
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.176;
Received: by mail-yx0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l5so1892886yen.21
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.30.101 with SMTP id r5mr1891806oeh.68.1340370798264; Fri,
 22 Jun 2012 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.182.46.36 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
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>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:13:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPAJj9KfOatTP8LyTcGZsCamCuWoduTwgLWmpqP9m5VnxYVbBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for entropy in
 communication ?
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.176 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=paskios@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>
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=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On 21 June 2012 11:49, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

A simpler solution:

: <- [=CB=90]

a:
e:
i:
o:
u:
so'a:
so'e:
so'i:
so'o:
so'u:
...

Extend the vowel so that it can be heard out of the noise.
Additionally: speak louder.

If this doesn't work, then the problem isn't the language but either
the speaker's own vowel pronunciation or the surrounding noise itself.
Chances are, in such an overwhelmingly noisy environment, even your
"q" would be misheard as a different consonant: "aqa" as "aka", "iqi"
as "iji", etc. Consonants are no less mistakable than vowels. (I
regularly participate in my Japanese peers' Lojban workshop on Skype,
and not uncommon are confusions between /l/ & /r/, /b/ & /v/, /j/ &
/dj/, /z/ & /dz/, and /'/ & /x/, even when the phone line is fairly
clear. They could have complained about this and proposed a reform
analogous to yours, but they don't and instead just roll with it, keep
practicing.)


> 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.
> [...]
> 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. =C2=A0 But =
at
> least it shows this is no dead-end street question. =C2=A0 And also we've
> no need to be aggressive. =C2=A0 Meanwhile, natlangs are still better tha=
n
> lojban on the entropy topic]

I don't think any irrational conservatism has been involved at least
in my responses to your idea. I'm actually rather leftist in this
community -- I can be in favor of any well-founded progressive
proposals aimed at improving Lojban or even creating a better
offshoot.

You are yet to substantiate your claim that {so'a/so'e/...} etc. are a
real problem. You have to explain how "a noisy environment" is or will
be so common a condition that a phonological/morphological reform is
necessary.

(Please note that I'm not angry at you. Don't be discouraged from
discussing your concerns about Lojban with other jbopre.)

mu'o

--=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.