Arpis, thank you for your reasoned and moderate tone. =A0U= nlike Lindar and aionys, whose version of dialogue is simply sticking their= fingers in their ears and saying "lalala, I'm not listening, you&= #39;re an a**hole" (really? =A0THIS is the attitude we want to have to= wards people who have an interest in our language?), you are actually expla= ining their concerns to Escape.

Aionys, you keep harping about experimentally proving this, = rather than the self-evident mathematical proofs. =A0So tell me -- how woul= d YOU design an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis? You design = it, we can carry it out.

li'a lo ni frica zo so'a zo so'u na barda .= ije da'i do na krici du'u go'i=A0.ibo mi stidi lo nu do sanli c= a'u le julne tanxe fau lo nu da lausku lu ko tolri'ugau so'* lo= vu cilce jo'u xagji cinfo li'u do

(and personally, I've always wondered why the CLL m= akes such a big deal about the digits being easily told apart in noisy=A0en= vironments=A0(18.2) when as clearly demonstrated here and in so many other = places (ko'V series, fV series, etc.), it's not the case. =A0Better= for the CLL to not make the claim at all, since it=A0just=A0sets up its ow= n counterarguments in other area of the language (my personal opinion when = I first read that passage 8 years ago? =A0It was simply a dig at JCB and Lo= glan, which uses a different system which is much easier to memorize for th= e beginner (cf. tiljan and gleki's arguments about the matter at hand) = )

Escape's motivations for asking a question should n= ot be an issue ("Appeal to Motive" fallacy). =A0And attacking him= for the question simply makes him =A0defensive, as it would any person. = =A0Why can't a person simply point out a language feature that bothers = them without being pilloried? =A0A simple, "Yes, we know about it, but= we're not likely to change it, and we don't think it to be an actu= al problem in real life situations more than any other natlang" would = have made this thread a lot shorter.

Now, as to Escape's contention that such kind of ph= onemic ambiguity in words of potentially disastrous confusion (i.e., opposi= te words in the same scale) doesn't exist in natural languages, I WILL = challenge that assertion. =A0<facetiousness> Really? =A0Have you stud= ied all the scales in all of the world's many thousands of languages? = =A0You impress me! =A0</facetiousness> I haven't found any yet, b= ut I can't dismiss the possibility it exists in a natlang...

\ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --gejyspa

On Sun, Jun 24,= 2012 at 11:46 AM, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com><= /span> wrote:

aionys is pointing out that even though, mat= hematically, you can find
a difference in ambiguity, this doesn't (necessarily) mean anything in<= br> practice. There are a whole host of things that can go wrong between
the model and the real world (the model may imperfectly model the real
world, the model may perfectly model something that is not the real
world, etc.)

Also, taking for a given that lojban has more potential ambiguity due
to ambient noise or mishearing, that doesn't mean that _communication_<= br> in lojban is any more difficult than in other languages; discourse
might structure itself so that this is not an issue.

Even taking for granted that communication in lojban is more difficult
than in other languages, you have failed to answer the question that
other people have posed: "so what?"

Do you propose a change to lojban? It's not going to happen, as it
will have to be so pervasive as to invalidate all the lojban we
already know.
Do you propose a new language? Design it yourself and come back to us;
we may not learn it, but we'll appreciate your work (and point out
flaws in it that you hadn't thought of).
Do you propose we just give up on lojban? You're posting this to the lojban mailing list; you can imagine the outcome yourself.

One of the strengths of lojban, entirely apart from its design, is
common to most successful open source projects; we are willing and
able to avoid yak shaving and bike shedding, and even though we
sometimes enjoy a jbodau here and there, we can completely ignore
proposals without feeling bad. there are simply too many changes to
consider, and stability is more important.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also "scientificity" isn't a word.
>
> It is in my natlang, but sorry this does not exist in English.
>
>
>
> Come, what you want is the prove that S(Example 2) much bigger than > mean value of S(Example 1s) for all Example 1s we can imagine.
>
> I reply with a minoration. =A0 A minoration IS A MATHEMATICAL proof. > If I was asked by you if an elephant is bigger than a mouse, even
> without precisely measuring both animals, I could reason like that : >
> Size(Elephant) much bigger than 1 meter
>
> Size(Mouse), smaller then 0.30 meter
>
> =3D> thus Size(Elephant) much bigger than Size(Mouse)
>
>
> This is the same here, simply you don't perceive how much bigger i= s
> S(E2) relatively to all S(E1).
>
>
> But, anyway, well, I surrender. =A0 There must be somewhere =A0studies=
> recording estimates of S(E1s) for a lot of E1 situations where one
> letter is mistyped.
>
> And I bet mean value of S(E1s) is between 1 and 1.58, which is the
> most natural estimate tells us that in natural context there are in > the worst cases 2 ou 3 possibilities.
>
> You see, I make this a prediction that can be falsified, in a
> popperish way of science. =A0 This is what I bet.
>
> And this is still less than 2.3 which is THE PROVED VALUE of S(E2). >
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "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=3Den.
>

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.