Received: from mail-bk0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:51016)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxD67auBBRoEfHjorw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T1S7x-0006iy-AO; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:43 -0700
Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4sf304594bkw.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:21 -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=nWfWcHOrPnLq2zIbnxu0dvOX2ZJEOzgnaLu5JGcv0nw=;
        b=zLHdWZ5DPaTRcziBHBiVTE23Bbzf6EgbhDFTg0Zw4XZleeM0I5mJ9LHaJfjBzS0h5c
         FU08LCdt8amNqV1paHNdp3X2RL73LhuadK9+/VlYCpF5+zhSLd54+M7ityWd2DBobTv9
         MP6uiGZNYQZe16QWMKvawCnEIGwCvdPYUVoBM=
Received: by 10.216.133.156 with SMTP id q28mr342039wei.53.1344993018259;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.216.141.22 with SMTP id f22ls1282736wej.0.gmail; Tue, 14 Aug
 2012 18:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.96.42 with SMTP id dp10mr2463609wib.2.1344993017404;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.96.42 with SMTP id dp10mr2463608wib.2.1344993017395;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cx9si1154wib.0.2012.08.14.18.10.17
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.43;
Received: by wgbdr1 with SMTP id dr1so800848wgb.12
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.236.24 with SMTP id v24mr8839035weq.18.1344993017225;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:17 -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 ck9sm23304wib.2.2012.08.14.18.10.14
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <502AF6F0.8050601@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:10:08 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
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: <CAGO2uOPcMjNogyRO8Wi-v+swm60xLR8X21=aykzmcMOh51e0-g@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMKwHj1=42g+ubU+DBsqz3cKc+OZLHhG7nfmX9o1dCYqt+VTKw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGO2uOPhxRB3ULO-FR7ZjgotoiWs5qGViGML_CYr7mUdrcE2Gg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMKwHj3aKi-i1ctjZ1ds1tinSFgzLxCzobxAyiRzrjOqBmpowg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGO2uOOGsUZvsNF5od4cfxeo8FX2-4ELApaSCFkUKt4uNY_Lfw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMKwHj2yw0qDh8gJD3g6WNfp+sNtbp4AKEmqO+bTqw3=57rSAQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGO2uOPbEP=xHEbiVqKtV=MtFipdeTuYeChJyaFOeCk8Nzcv7Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMKwHj3ccePRbn4o6AAg6kUBq9L81wiP3uvujvdTf2uiLXS7LA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMKwHj1FHdRsT1_fxeF+HoE6_9wGA-0DR2PGSbzA6SmiLLwdTA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGO2uOMmQC5Gukr59RpQiGXc1x5UoX3mP1dbrrxNkAyr7TckVQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CALm==BXREvbHdGWT-QwCMG=qBz9=vRW=2mGHU=9nke33B+zceQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAKOEKkSHpeKOqLAsw5OU82nPUJwyDqWnHSkP_FPtQQjg58m+iQ@mail.gmail.com>	<502A6B71.7080407@gmail.com> <CAKOEKkQszf485RkL+-ONC+JYSmN4bn_SY0db73dg-xjmA84s3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKOEKkQszf485RkL+-ONC+JYSmN4bn_SY0db73dg-xjmA84s3w@mail.gmail.com>
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 74.125.82.43 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: <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; 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 14/08/2012 18:16:
> I am sorry you don't see my point. I will try to clarify. I never
> said that the digits aren't maximally distinct (although in addition
> to rei/re confusion, "pi" can easily be confused with bi (and to a
> lesser extent, pa) in a noisy environment.) But you make two claims
> above -- A) "[maximal distinctiveness] is a virtue, especially in
> lexical domains where context is unlikely to be able to disambiguate,
> such digits and letters" and B) "partial internal sameness enhances
> learnability" These are contradictory claims. Which is the virtuous
> one?

They're both virtues, but, as is often the case with virtues, not fully com=
patible. For the digits, I think Lojban is right to prioritize distinctiven=
ess over learnability, tho something like {ki ke ka ko ku mi me ma mo mu} w=
ould also have worked equally well (i.e. not varying the consonant for ever=
y digit, and choosing very distinct consonants). Elsewhere, I think (as I s=
aid in my last msg) the pattern of keeping the consonant the same within pa=
radigms and varying the vowel is a good one.

>In original Loglan, the digits 0-9 were ni, ne, to, te, fo fe,
> so, se, vo, ve, which directly addresses point B,but in lojban we
> chose to chose A over B WITH REGARD TO DIGITS, and tout it in the CLL
> with a direct call-out. In letters (and in many other selma'o) , on
> the other hand, we chose option B, despite the fact that "letters" is
> one of the places that you say A is better suited.

Sure: just as credit is due for the digit names, debit is duefor the letter=
 names. I don't think that means CLL should keep shtoom about the credit fo=
r the digit names, tho.

> And in fact, cmavo
> space is so tight, confusion will always be a problem in noisy
> environments ("Did he say "lo pa jatna cu morsi" or "lo ba jatna cu
> morsi"?") The big answer is "So what? Nothing we can do about it to
> satisfy all situations.

Of course there's something that can be done about it! Ensure that words th=
at context will be least likely to be able to disambiguate have the more di=
stinct forms. That minimizes the chances of mishearing.

> Humans have evolved to deal with ambiguity in communication, inlcuding "k=
i'a/ke'o.

As I said in my last, when context doesn't disambiguate, the language chang=
es.

>So why draw attention to it in  the CLL?" was my only point here.

Because it's a good design feature. It's an area of the language that doesn=
't need to be fixed.

--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.