Received: from mail-ee0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]:33393) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1T1Ips-0001uK-5U; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:24 -0700 Received: by eeke49 with SMTP id e49sf140600eek.16 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=upejtXE1utGflYG8rJIuUlhmXAJNGdqBw2ii7xOuNhQ=; b=uW1iBy1A99UErfcWLYBEzUWGsK8X7z+i6lQxHafXBRIg1RnXZipS0FG0rayOhWaHzy F4oMLb1oR9TBeZg5rjUQKwpf9JZfGC78uRSI18qY+P7ojSKjCwSGw6NCCa9ZKCaojZuD +edWMaE9j+5LCWgWSG5ulc9WYe1SJWmbCqHlU= Received: by 10.216.60.7 with SMTP id t7mr259050wec.60.1344957304017; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.209.195 with SMTP id s43ls190453eeo.5.gmail; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.184.71 with SMTP id r47mr166073eem.4.1344957303228; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.184.71 with SMTP id r47mr166072eem.4.1344957303190; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5si3741691eep.0.2012.08.14.08.15.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.172; Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so202291eaa.31 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.209.129 with SMTP id s1mr19991670eeo.24.1344957303072; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.77] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.76.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g46sm7585154eep.15.2012.08.14.08.15.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <502A6B71.7080407@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:14:57 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for entropy in communication ? References: In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Michael Turniansky, On 10/08/2012 14:43: > (and personally, I've always wondered why the CLL makes such a big > deal about the digits being easily told apart in noisy environments > (18.2) when as clearly demonstrated here and in so many other places > (ko'V series, fV series, etc.), it's not the case. Better for the CLL > to not make the claim at all, since it just sets up its own > counterarguments in other area of the language (my personal opinion > when I first read that passage 8 years ago? It was simply a dig at > JCB and Loglan, which uses a different system which is much easier to > memorize for the beginner (cf. tiljan and gleki's arguments about the > matter at hand) ) I don't understand your point. With the exception of re/rei, the digits *ar= e* maximally distinct, and that is a virtue, especially in lexical domains = where context is unlikely to be able to disambiguate, such digits and lette= rs. We see in English that _x-ty_ and _x-teen_ words are frequently replace= d by _x-zero_ and _one-x_, and that on the telephone the alpha-bravo-charli= e-delta system is used for letter names. It's true that other series aren't= internally maximally distinct, but partial internal sameness enhances lear= nability, and the ko'V and fV series at least make use of vocalic contrasts= , which are acoustically more salient than consonantal ones (tho for reason= s of acoustic distinctness, ko'V would better have been kV'o). > Now, as to Escape's contention that such kind of phonemic ambiguity > in words of potentially disastrous confusion (i.e., opposite words in > the same scale) doesn't exist in natural languages, I WILL challenge > that assertion. Really? Have you studied all the > scales in all of the world's many thousands of languages? You impress > me! I haven't found any yet, but I can't dismiss the > possibility it exists in a natlang... In many accents of American English, _can_ and _can't_ are very similar or = even sometimes identical, and it is a known impediment to effective communi= cation. A slightly different phenomenon is autoantonyms (), most of which involve polysemous= words with opposite polysemes. Some of these (e.g. apology, sanction) are = also not always disambiguable by context and hence are impediments to effec= tive communication. --And. --=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.