From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Sep 02 08:16:13 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EBDGu-0003z9-D3 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:16:04 -0700 Received: from web81301.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.76]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EBDGr-0003ym-50 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:16:04 -0700 Received: (qmail 60242 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Sep 2005 15:15:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20050902151559.60239.qmail@web81301.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.32.165] by web81301.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:15:59 PDT Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:15:59 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Orthography To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20050902005912.43585.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 10477 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- John E Clifford wrote: As a detail, two of the characters > repeat standard numerals, which is iffy – we > probably shouldn’t do that if we can avoid it > but, on the other hand, the contexts of > occurrence will almost always be significantly > different so no actual uncertainty need arise. Looking over the whole range of possibilities, it seems only A is a problem; numeral 6, which appeared to conflict with b, can better be taken as character 95 than 31 (that is, the top line is normal for it). > The new A (and hence a) needs to be a character > that exists both with and without the top line. > 55, 60, and 63 are out because there capped > forms > are numerals. That leaves 58 (in inverted h), > 59 > (58 with a bottom line), 61 (the mirror of 59) > and 62 (H). The vowel characters are asymmetric > , > so only 59 and 61 (for A and E) will work. > > Next we need four left-right mirror pairs: for > bp, gk, zs, and nm. 62 and 126, being > symmetric, > are well out of this. So are 55 (square U), 63 > (8 without the top), 118 (inverted 55) and 62 > (H). 58 is out because its mirror is numeral > 4, > 82 is the mirror of numeral 7, 111 mirrors > numeral 6, 122 mirrors 9, and 114 and 116 are > arguably too close to numeral 7 (a half line > dropping from the end). That leaves 59 and 61 > (numeral 4 with a bottom line) These were, of course, just assigned to a and e. But, since bp no longer needs a new form, an adequate set remains. , 83 and 101 > (square C), 90 and 108 (F), and 27 and 45 > (inverted F) just freed. The new pb pair frees > up > the old p, 31 (mirror of numeral 6). This > leaves > x, which , not having a mate, need not be > asymmetric and thus could be something like 62 > (H, but would this be a problem for English > speakers?) or any of the remaining forms. > There > are several other single forms remaining, in > case > we want to rethink the pairings of l and r, m > and n, which, while sensible, are based on > different principles from that for the first > run > of consonants. Some reshuffling might make sense: vowels should probably be as simple as possible, for example, and they are not now. There is at least one non-problematic mirror pair unused: 92 and 106 (square ? without the dot) and a couple of inversion pairs (mirroring along a different plane -- possibly to indicate a different relationship from voicing). To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.