From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jul 02 19:35:03 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxEGr-0007wh-8C for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:34:45 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxEGp-0007wa-9A for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:34:45 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 14so324403nzn for ; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:34:42 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pIkHHMtd03TkdvjlGgIh8wMhQSJOUxKK7cOx8fDZK1VHg15d1M3wEq7zbWxX0qMr4BHW2fkVoCTUUJhhhFrMHh1Pp5HozwvXjFE3mrgRZpmSmaghVsdLmLsNM+PCwg70+Op93ZwPhMMbD9kVkCtDwJ8km57PN45OSqND70AEG0s= Received: by 10.36.18.16 with SMTP id 16mr3129921nzr; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [70.224.74.45]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 20sm1371736nzp.2006.07.02.19.34.41; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44A8818D.60800@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:31:41 -0400 From: Hugh O'Byrne User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [hobyrne@gmail.com: Alphabet] References: <20060702215144.96228.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060702215144.96228.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 11869 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: hobyrne@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list John E Clifford wrote: > > --- Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > >>Yay! I'm on the list now. I can defend my message! > > coi xius coi I'm trying out a new writing system in replying to this e-mail. Please don't take offense, I'm doing it to see if it helps with my focus in writing a reply, and maybe if it helps in communicating what I wish to express. I'll try to make all my "point" summaries value-neutral, as easily pointed at me as at you, to be fair. > ... > Well, Hangul is designed to serve one language, VS is meant to be able to represent all (or a > significant portion of all) languages. It is thus more complete in the sense of covering more > possibilities, including those not found in some particular language. This means, of course, that > it includes a lot of stuff that any particular language does not need. It is consequently not so > useful for a particular language (internally, not for explaining to someone outside). For > example, it has two sets of velars, which, while phonemic isn some languages are not in Lojban. > The distinction has, therefore to be ignored – somehow – for use in Lojban (either opting for > one – which is inaccurate in some places – or dropping the distinctive features involved, > which means in effect not using VS). Point: agreed (changed my mind). In another post, I come to the realise that the core Lojban alphabet is best a *phonemic* one, *not* a phonetic one. Phonetics are *too* specific, and numerous past the point of being burdensome. So, my aim shifts from implementing a representative phonetic alphabet, to a representative phonemic alphabet, preferably based on an existing representative phonetic alphabet (to avoid duplication of work, and provide an easy bridge to the study of phonetics). > As for regularity, in its area I don’t see how Hangul > could be more systematic (what I take “regular” to mean). It is not iconic any more or less > than VS. Point: muddy semantics. When I see a larger system with a lot of regularity, next to a smaller system with a lot of regularity, I will say that the larger system is more regular. I concede the point that VS and Hangul may have similar 'density' of regularity, but I maintain my point that with VS covering more space, it has more of the 'substance' of regularity. It's a bit like saying wood is lighter than water, but a branch is heavier than a raindrop (only with 'space' and 'substance' reversed). > (screed on “logical”) Lojban is logical in the sense that its grammar is based upon Applied > First-Order Predicate Logic. "screed", I'd never come across that word before. :) Rhetorical point: We are working from different definitions of the same words. Lojban is logical in more ways than just that. (More on this below.) > Consequences of this include that arguments are more transparent > than in ordinary language and that the surface forms of sentences are less remote from the deep > structures. Right. > Any other sense of “logical” applied to Lojban needs to be rephrased in some > other terms to be evaluated. I would counter that Lojban has several logical features, and what you seem to be calling *the* logical feature of Lojban is just one of them, and is better called 'first order predicate logic' for reasons of precision. The terms 'logic' and 'logical', by themselves, represent something more general. I opine that the way in which I'm using the terminology is more valid, and the term you're using should be qualified with 'first order predicate' to more accurately represent it. > The prima facie evaluation under “logical” is that it does not > apply. Point: conditionally conceded. Reading your word "logical" as "first order predicate logic", I concur. > Beyond that (and, indeed, including that) Lojban is *meant* to be easy (how well it > succeeds is another issue). Opinion point: We have different values. Mmm. My take on it is that Lojban is meant to be *good*. The better it is implemented, the easier it will be (in general; but naturally, a more complete and subtle implementation will inevitably become harder again in some respects), but getting the language easy is a bonus symptomatic side-effect rather than a goal. It may even be a benchmark, during the development of the language, but it is still secondary. > Lojban has been stripped of all the froo-froos (tense, cases, etc.) > of natural languages, completely regularized (and, so simplified). Even the vocabulary is meant > to be recognizable by most literate speakers (speakers of the major languages) because the words > (the gismu at least) are partially familiar. Point: agreed. That you put this in the paragraph under "screed on 'logical'", I hope, is an indication you can appreciate that the term 'logical' extends beyond 'first order predicate logic'. Right. I read that much of the basic vocabulary was designed to match words from several major world languages, weighted by the population that speaks that language. It struck me as so utterly, utterly gimmicky that I laughed out loud. As a friend said, "when you mix all the colours, you'll always get *brown*". Even though I laugh at it, I admire it, because it does embody the spirit of the language. The words for the digits are deliberately placed far from each other in sound-space; I consider this to be a logical feature of Lojban too. Where information is frequently represented in a very dense form, it makes good sense to have that form as error-tolerant as possible, even more so than more common but less critical everyday use. >>BTW, The word 'dyslexic' makes *me* feel dyslexic. I have this nagging >>feeling in the pit of my stomach that it should be 'dislexic'. That 'y' >>just seems *wrong*. :) > > The “dys-”, like “lexic” is from Greek, “dis-“ is Latin. They also work in slightly > different ways (though they are related). “dis-“ typically points to the opposite of some > existing term, “dys-“ modifys some term of activity to say it is done badly (as opposed to > “eu-“ for doing it well). So, “dyslexia” is doing lexia badly, not doing the opposite of > lexia. Point: learned. :) My wife knows Latin and Greek too. I get lessons like this from her occasionally. It's fun. >>> (Want to mess yourself up? Take a text and have the computer replace >>> every [dbpq] with a *random* character from [dbpq]. Then try to read >>> it). >> >>I'm not sure what you're trying to express here. Take a text and have >>the computer replace every [aeio] with a random character from [aeio], >>then try to read it. Pick *any* four (relatively common) letters. Pick >>7.8% (approx. frequency of [dbpq] combined) of the letters in the text >>randomly, and shuffle them. A demonstration only statistically >>demonstrates something when there are control cases too. > > Messing with the vowels is much less disastrous than with the consonants. Indeed, we can > generally read fairly well passages in which the vowels are missing altogether, clearly not the > case with consonants. Part of point: conceded. Part of point: remains. Yes, vowels was my first idea, and I realised it wasn't very good. So I came up with other ideas. It still remains that a demonstration without a control case (or several control cases, as is necessary when several aspects of the experiment may be relavent) is not a valid demonstration in a scientific sense. > Consonants form the core of word Gestalts and we generally (once fully > literate) see Gestalts rather than letter strings (English – indeed all written languages – > are more like Chinese than we at first notice). Point: inquiry. I don't really understand what you mean by that last bit in the parentheses. Perhaps this is not the forum for it, but I'd be interested to learn what property (properties?) of Chinese you're referring to. I seem to remember hearing in a movie (I know, hardly a good source for hard data) that some aspects of Chinese words, such as singular/plural, perhaps gender, perhaps tense, are manifested by subtle nuances on the vowels (well... subtle to an English-speaker... another case of the boundaries on the phonemic map being drawn in different places). >>Lhoerr does seem to be closer to Visible Speech than Hangul. And it >>uses a wider set of features on the symbols, which goes some way toward >>addressing the "all letters look alike" argument. Thanks! You've >>helped me (at least, partially) deflect the biggest argument against the >>idea! I like the look of it, I like it quite a bit; I'll investigate >>some more. > > Lhoerr apprears to be as arbitrary as VS and not to have any real advantages over it. Point: missed (I'm sorry, this one *does* point at you). I was not arguing that Lhoerr had advantages over VS in terms of arbitratiness. I was arguing that Lhoerr has an advantage over VS in that it has a wider set of features on the symbols. I stated that clearly. What is a very subtle visual cue in VS, a short line, in a slightly different place, or a tight curve, is a wider, more sweeping change to a symbol in Lhoerr. A more obvious, larger feature is more easily, more quickly processed in the visual field. Less chance of ambiguity when the pen slips slightly, less need to pause and peer at a symbol closely, these *are* real advantages. >>> It is the non-solution to a non-problem in Lojban. >> >>You don't see a problem. I do. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. > > You do apparently have a problem. You have an aesthetic which finds the use of the Latin alphabet > for Lojban unappealing. But that is your problem, not Lojban’s or Lojbanists’. Point: emotional. I am a Lojbanist. I'm not a member of the ruling elite, or the steering committee, I'm not even barely fluent. I am a Lojbanist. I do see room for improvement, and I do think it's a worthy goal, to improve upon Lojban. I am a Lojbanist. I am a part of Lojban. I will not let you dismiss me so easily. Changing my "I do see a problem" to "You do have a problem", from the purely logical point of view, or for example if translated into Lojban, is transparently erroneous and glaringly misrepresentative. From a human point of view, it was low, cheap, petty, and unfair. I do not deserve that, and I will not let you apply it to me. Meta-point: query. Why are you going on the offensive? I am upset. I shall have to look at the rest of this post later. mi'e .xius. 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.