From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 04 14:25:34 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxsOS-0002h4-3L for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:25:16 -0700 Received: from web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.40]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxsON-0002gv-Lx for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:25:15 -0700 Received: (qmail 40910 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Jul 2006 21:25:10 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IovLdNf/zqGGwQfxYai9AmXEjOBnvZfMh0nCG+h27D5dj0b+muiDEFgv2/LXRFU5PahohSkYIeOIcKtNzTqcQAI4+BKdAqBHqc39+fVY2DX1oD80EeZdzUDpRu5WKY+bD2/fev30IXLZKe6Be67npgphipsy/gEc5TX+knqmhFA= ; Message-ID: <20060704212510.40908.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.140.90] by web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:25:10 PDT Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:25:10 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: [hobyrne@gmail.com: Alphabet] To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <44AA8F0B.4090505@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11906 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 --- Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > > Dialects drift over time. But there is a defined baseline of phonemics > for Lojban. While no region or accent has the claim to be a more > 'definitive' or 'central' accent for the English language (except for > the Royal Family speaking the King's English, perhaps, but even that's > just a social rank not universally recognised as being the authority on > the subject), that is not the case for Lojban. Lojban *has* a Grand > Supreme Primary Definition. > > So even if dialects drift, and the borders on the phonemic map wander in > different ways in different places, the symbolism of the alphabet will > still represent the baseline. It would serve the role of Japan's common > dialect. There are many regions in Japan with different dialects, but > everyone learns the common one as well as the local one; when with > friends, or in the neighbourhood, everyone uses the local dialect, when > communicating with someone in a different region (one of the things > Lojban is supposed to facilitate), everyone uses common Japanese. In the case of Lojban, two factors come into play. One is that a written language, especially a relatively phonemic one, is a retardant to dialectic drift -- even an aid to returning to a standard language. Secondly, of course, is that Lojban, as an elective language, can use corecions not available in native languages to keep people in line. The whole of Lojban may drift over time (bahts become bats, say, or boats boughts) but the pattern will be maintained (knock wood). > > But VS symbols are arbitrary at a very basic level – the way they represent features. Given > the > > representation rules, they become systematic. The Latin alphabet leaves out this lower level > and > > represents sounds arbitrarily directly. It is thus the simpler system (26 arbitrary > connections > > versus several dozen arbitrary connections and then calculating what the combination means). > > Point: agreed (I changed my mind). > > Argument about simpler vs. better applies here. Sorry, I am taking -- as so much of Lojban does -- the psoition that simpler IS better (ceteris paribus). Otherwise it is hard to see what better might mean. > Also, the size of VS, I now agree, is way too big for Lojban, related to > the issue of a phonemic alphabet vs. a phonetic one. A *phonemic* > symbol set which represents features of sounds (i.e. a phonemic parallel > to the phonetic VS), will thus be 'simpler' (in the sense you follow > that word with: fewer arbitrary axioms at the initial creation of the > symbol set). Two parts of the symbol, with three attributes each, six > elements in all, will cover the 9 sounds of 'p' 'b' 'm' 't' 'd' 'n' 'k' > 'g' 'ng'. Not much of an improvement, from 9 symbols down to 6, but > considering just number of features, representative phonemic alphabet wins. We still need 9 symbols. I gather that what you mean is that each of these symbols can be analyzed into components and that only six potential components are needed to account 9 items (labial, dental, velar, voiced, voiceless, nasal?)The issue then is whether it is easier to learn six features and the signs for them and then calculate out the meaning of their various combinations or simply to learn nine symbols. I rather think that it is the latter and that, however the symbols are constructed, that is the way folks will learn them. The internal structure may serve some secondary purposes -- aids to memory early on, recovering lost information later (you give a nice example). But I expect the wholes to be the primary learning target. Mayhap we could run a test sometime (if nobody has). > I'm going to use RPA as an abbreviation for this 'representative > phonemic alphabet'. Substitute RPA for VS in all my previous posts... > > >>Stating that familiarity with the symbols is an advantage is dubious to > >>me. More in another post. > > > > Not from the Lojban philosophy. > > Point: clarification. > > I wasn't so much talking about familiarity's inherent value in the sense > of not having to learn something new. That is a positive advantage. I > was talking about familiarity's sense of already having learned > something that has to be unlearned. As I wrote on: > > >> In summary: I am *so* familiar with the 'o' > >>symbol, I was pronouncing the beginning of the word 'Lojban' like > >>'logic'... > > > >> well, depending upon what ‘o’ you use, it might be acceptable, since Lojban vowels cover > > fairly broad areas (I suspect you use the one like Lojban ‘a’ and that would not work). > > Point: agreed. > > Right. I'm pretty sure the way I was saying it, before I listened to a > podcast, was unacceptable by the rules of the language. I was > embarrassed. This is the associated baggage with 'familiarity' that > IMHO makes the advantage 'dubious'. As I noted, this factor does not seem to pose much of a problem in fact when the teaching aids are availalbe (as they have only recently become). Still, I suspect that does lessen the advantage of a familiar alphabet -- not enough to make it a disadvantage, however. > >>It doesn't add to the language of Lojban, no (at least, not > >>immediately). It adds to the culture. It embodies (what I see as) the > >>ideal of Lojban. It expresses the philosophy. It supports Lojban. > > > > I don’t see what relevant it adds to Lojban culture. > > Point: clarification. > > Lojban is about new, clean, structured communication and its > representation (what is communication but representation?). I don't see this as what Lojban is ABOUT. New doesn't enter at all, structured is not significantly more in Lojban than in any other language -- it just has a different, hopefully more transparent, structure. Clean is nice, too, but there is nothing in Lojban that forces that: one can be (and has often succeeded in being) as muddled, obscure, and irrational in Lojban as in English -- and it is not more or less obvious that one is so being. > The focus > of many people will be in the higher realm of intellectual expression. There is a lot of that, but there is a lot of setting dates and figuring out how to order a rare steak and countless other quotidian tasks. Lojban is meant to be a full language,, not just an academic vehicle. > But the focus *need* *not* be so narrow. It will harmoniously extend to > new, clean, structured representation of lower aspects of communication > too. That is how it would add to Lojban culture. But what would VS or RPA add to the culture new, clean,structured language, assuming Lojban were one? I suppose that the idea is that RPAS is new, clean, and structured, too -- in which case it wiould fit in but not add. Unfortunately, Lojban isn't that way. But neither is RPA, so maybe it fits in after all. > Benefits to the deaf, and some of the other points I make, are just > happy side-effects. But they still have real value, even if not to you > personally, which is why I mention them. But I grant you they are not > primary motives. > > > Lojban is not interested in teaching the > > deaf (or anyone else) to speak plainly and that is the sole real use of VS. > > Point: confusion. > > "Lojban is not interested in teaching people to speak plainly." > > Hm. I just cannot wrap my head around that sentence. > > Wow. I'm afraid *this* is a *real* communications breakdown. Not clear what the problem is here. I meant for "speak plainly" "articulate accurately" or some such. To be sure, every language needs to be articulated with some precision but Lojban does not require more than others and makes no special effort to achieve a higher degree. Nowadays, the degree in Lojban is rather low since there are a number of phonetically differnt dialects, all of which adhere to the same phonemic structure (we hope -- no one has checked). Somdeay we may get everybiody on the same phonetic page as well. I didn't mean "plain" to be about content or mode of expression, but Lojban isn't about teaching people that either. > >>>I agree with Mark here. It sounds like Mr O'Byrne's objection to use of > >>>the Roman alphabet for Lojban is down to its 1) illogicality and 2) > >>>cultural bias. Understandable. > > > > Not obviously. It is not clear in what sense the Latin alphabet is illogical (and some other > > logical) > > Point: clarification. > > As you point out a bit later, I am being a bit fast and loose with the > word 'logical'. What I was trying to express here was that the Latin > alphabet has no *depth* of *structure*. It is a set of phonemic > symbols, but those symbols reveal nothing about the phonemes. It is > possible to generate a set of symbols which *does* represent something > about the phonemes, with an RPA. I suppose "depth" and "structure" refer to the internal representations of symbols in RPA. Yes, the Latin alphabet is short on those (not entirely lacking, but not sytematically developed). What is not clear is that this is a defect. One cold (and indeed several people have)develop RPA for Lojban -- for fun or because the problems involved in character design under the constraints involved were interesting and maybe even bvecause it seemed to make sense to write Lojban that way. Some have probably even suggested that Lojban needed this. No one has made a convincing case and yours does not seem to be better. > Depth of regular structure is (in my mind, anyway) very closely > associated with logic. I hope it is now clear what I meant. The point of FOPL is to have no depth of structure, everything is on the surface. To be sure, that surface structure is derived recursively from a few (a very small infinity) simple elements and is broken back down in logical operations, but (with perhaps a few exceptions)everything is taken as being linguistically on the same level. > > and the Latin alphabet is the de facto universal alphabet, cutting across most cultural > > lines – at least for government work, but also for advertising and, of course, computer use. > > Point: granted. > > I said in my intro, that I place very little value on cultural inertia. > I take a long view. > > But I recognise that there is no long view if the project dies in the > early stages, so I do concern myself with short-term issues too. Just > not as much. > > I may write more on this later. > > >>Maybe you don't think in terms of phonemes when you read the Latin > >>alphabet. You don't think as much in terms of predicates when you read > >>English, do you? Isn't one of the important goals of Lojban to open the > >>mind to new ways of thinking? Logical, structured representations? > > > > Huh? The structure is just another, more complex, arbitrary association. And, of course, > > “logical” here is just a positive word without content (as yet, anyhow). > > Point: clarification. > > Yes, there's that word 'logical' again. > > If I had a chance to rewrite the last bit, I would use "Representations > that convey more meaning in deeper structures". Not quite sure what this means either. It is true that there is a hope that learning Lojban will make one more aware of the deep structure of what one says even in English. This should come because 1: an Englsih sentence and its Lojban translation should have the same deep structure (more or less) and 2: the Lojban sentence reveals this structure more directly. Now the context here is building to a conclusion that RPA is a natural for Lojban because its characters reveal the deep phonetic structure of Lojban phonemes. But, while understanding what one is saying is a goal here, knowing how one produces the sounds is not (so long as one can consistently produce them), so the argument does not obviously go through. > >>>When I learned hangul, I did so without knowing about its featural > >>>properties. And I think if I had, it would have slowed me down as I > >>>would struggle to figure out each letter according to the system rather > >>>than memorize them individually. > >> > >>Granted, I could imagine that the learning process might be slower. > >>... > > > > How is this relevant to anything in Lojban? > > Point: Answer. > > Lojban is an exercise in learning ways to express yourself, in neat, > structural, clear, regular ways. VS has the same goal. I'm not sure that would be a way to characterize Lojban and it is clearly not a goal of VS (nor RPA), which is about representing sounds in these ways, not about expressing oneself. > Meta-point. > > The paragraph above, which I was responding to, is not relavent to > anything in Lojban. It was relavent to Hangul and VS and its ilk, which > is why my reply was relavent only to VS and its ilk, and not to Lojban > in particular. I'm not the one who took this part of the conversation > off the track, you are. > > >>Alphabets such as VS and Lhoerr teach a different way (a more > >>structured, logical way) > > > > Brap! > > Point: confusion. > > I don't know what "Brap!" means (except a minor angel, skilled at > locating precious metals; I don't think this was the meaning you > intended, though). I was hoping that this forum, in particular, would > be one in which communication would be clearer. > > I'm guessing you're getting tired of me using the word 'logical' to > represent anything I value positively, which I understand. I'll try and > use more specific words, like 'structured', maybe 'layered', > 'representative'. Anyway, I'll try and swerve from the word "logic" in > future, when I see it dead ahead in the thought-to-typing buffer in my mind. "Brap" is a belch, half-way between a gag and a vomit. You interpreted it correctly, as I was sure you would. > >>to think about how we speak, and represent > >>speech. How can anyone think they're *not* appropriate for Lojban?! > >>It's at a lower level, closer to the physical interface than the > >>information-bearing higher-level protocols, but it's *entirely* the > >>spirit of Lojban. > > > > It’s easy to think they are not appropriate to Lojban since they violate a basic design > > principle. It thus is entirely the opposite of the spirit of Lojban. A course in Lojban > history > > seems called for. > > Point: somewhat conceded. > > Lojban has conflicting requirements. It is to be easy to integrate into > the current culture, and it is to remain relavent (avoid obsolescence) > for long into the future. (I guess that second one is an implicit one, > and it's possible I have the wrong end of the stick here. Let me know > if I do.) I am valuing the second point higher. Many value the first > point higher. Yeah, the second one is hard to count in. Lojban started life as a tool in a short term experiment. It has gotten out of hand from that point of view. But, while we hope that it will be around for a while, no particular effort has been exerted to further that goal -- beyond trying to build a base of speakers. There is, for example, no regular mechanism for adding gismu to keep up with changing realities. > >>Also, Lojban has a mechanism for expressing words in foreign languages. > >> But because of the limited number of phonemes, and the fact that the > >>phonemes of Lojban do not match phonemes of other languages exactly, > >>they can't be properly expressed in the Lojban alphabet. VS/Lhoerr > >>needn't be used in its entirety to write basic Lojban, just pick the > >>symbols of the existing phonemes. But it has the *capability* of > >>expressing foreign words with foreign sounds without going outside of > >>the system. > > > > Lojban expresses foreign words as much as possible in Lojbanic phonology; it does not need – > nor > > want – a more accurate representation. > > Point: opinion. > > I disagree. Mark E. Shoulson disagrees. > > Lojban has specific mechanisms for expressing foreign words. It is > lacking, because Lojbanic phonemes are not the same as all foreign > languages. Lojban 'wants' (perhaps... some would say 'needs') to have > at least the *capacity* to be as precise as possible in everything it > expresses (though not necessitating precision all the time). > > So I disagree. If you can back your statement, that Lojban does *not* > want to be accurate, I'd be interested to hear. Historical note, from Loglan indeed. Someone proposed incorporating the whole IPA into Loglan to enable us to literally say anything any language could. The decree on that was that if you want to say something in another language it should still be said as though it were Loglan. So far as I can find, that decree was not altered in the coming of Lojban. There is a device that allows nonce uses of non-Lojbanic sounds, but these are covered in writing by writing the foreign word out in its own alphabet (or common transcription). That is, Lojbvan treats foreign expressions pretty much like any other language does (though it does mark it better). Using a universal alphabet and either phonetic or (home language) phonemic would just lead to confusion without a lot of superfluous details required. > >>Summary: > >> > >>Advantages of Latin alphabet: > >>* Fewer people will have to learn the symbol set (familiarity with the > >>symbols, which I consider a disadvantage). > > > > But Lojban calls an advantage. > > Point: opinion > > *You* call an advantage. There is extra baggage associated with > 'familiarity', as I say in my next point: Lojban does. See the discussion at the beginning of CLL as well as the usage for half a century. > >>Disadvantages of Latin alphabet: > >>* Deeply ingrained associations many people in the world already have > >>with the symbols, inconsistent both globally and individually > >>(familiarity, which some consider an advantage). > > > > But the differences are relatively small and easily compensated for: see how quickly an > English > > speaker learns Pinyin. > > Point: uncontested. See earlier. At best it lessens the advantage of using a familiar alphabet. > It is a disadvantage. > > >>* If you are unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet, there is no way to > >>learn it except by memorizing all the arbitrary symbol-sound associations. > > > > Which are fewer and simpler than the articulatory rules of VS etc. > > Point: agree (changed my mind) > > Yes, I now recognise that phonemic is suited for this job, and phonetic > is not. Layers of symbolism within the phonemic alphabet would have > fewer still and simpler still rules than Latin. See earlier. It is not clearly advantageous to learn the alphabet in two steps rather than one, nor is it clear that, even in learning in one step, the similarities ease ;learning. > >>* Less expressive for foreign sounds. > > > > Not a problem, since we are not learning those foreign sounds. > > (dismissive) > > Point: scope > > *You* are not learning foreign sounds. Lojban has a place for foreign > sounds, ZOI and la'o. It is currently not as expressive as it should > be; by that, I mean that words which are not homonyms in their own > language can effectively become so when limited to the current system. > Perhaps you don't use the ZOI/la'o feature of the language, I'm not > saying my idea is for you, I'm saying my idea is for Lojban. The point is that Lojban is not set up to express foreign words or sounds but Lojban ones. If we find we need to sue a foreign word, we have the means to do so, but we surely aren't going to take this occasional and peripheral task as a criterion for selecting an alphabet. > >>Advantages of VS/Lhoerr: > >>* It is structured, logical, and consistent; entirely in tune with the > >>philosophy of Lojban. > > > > I don’t see any part of Lojban’s “philosophy” that belnds well with this system, which > is > > arbitrary and illogical (if xuis can use empty words, I can use theor equally empty > opposites). > > Point: missed. > > I have backed up my words. 'Depth of representation' or 'reductionist' > are perhaps the terms I should have used more than 'logical'. I > maintain that the three are very closely linked, though I admit maybe I > should have used the other terms more often instead of using the one, > 'logical', so much. I don't see what about Lojban is reductionist (indeed, I am not sure which of half a dozen meaning of that notion you have in mind) -- nor about Logic neither. In which case, you have not backed up your point, since the obvious ways that RPA is reductionist (mainly the same way it has depth of structure) don't apply to either either. > If the philosophy of regularity, conveying meaning clearly (on many > levels), is one you cannot see in Lojban, then we have ideological > differences. I shall be so bold and assertive enough to state I'm not > the only one. As noted earlier, Lojban is to be a LANGUAGE. As such it has to be capable of being as messy and obscure as any other. If we weliminate this possibility, then Lojban fails to be what it was intended to be. It is to be hoped that, since Lojban is relatively shallow structurally, certain kinds of inferential maneuvers will be more apparent than they are now and so reasoning will be improved. But nothing in Lojban requires its speakers to reason or to be reasonable. > As to arbitrariness, in the end, it is really just about unavoidable. > Pushing it down to its most fundamental elements is 'logical', yes, I'll > use the word. By that, I mean it only makes common sense. Probably the last thing to be said to have anything to do with logic. > Common > within the circles with which I associate myself, anyway. The creators > of Lojban could have chosen an arbitrary symbol for each word in the > language. They did not. Why? Because they knew that although > arbitrariness would come in somewhere, they didn't want it at such a > high conceptual level as words. Maily, I suspect (going back to Loglan) because they were not Chinese or even Japanese, so the familiar system was alphabetic> I doubt they ever even thought of the issue and certainly didn't decide it on such an abstract plain as this. > They decided to push the lowest unit of > representation not to words but to the components of words: phonemes. > This is a good decision. I hope you agree. Hey, I am not Chinese or Japanese either. Of course I agree. ? My extension of that train > of thought is that phonemic representation is still a higher-level > representation than is possible. Representation of the shape and use of > the mouth and vocal cords is a yet lower expression of how we speak. If > nothing else, the inertia of the decision to use phonemic symbols > instead of word symbols is a pointer that this is the way to go. Well, this particular train never left the station, so talking about where it ultimately leads on is, like it, a non-starter. On the other hand, why stop with the gross musculature; why not talk about the muscle fibers and the neurons and the appropriate sections of the brain. I suppose the answer for now is that we don't know enough about those, but that just outlines a path of research that we ought to incorporate into the Lojban culture, so that we could use that coding eventually. If the decsion to use phonemic symbols was inertia -- which I agree it was -- then it points to using the Latin alphabet as well. > So this point stands. > > >>* If you are unfamiliar with the alphabet, you can choose to learn all > >>the associations straight off the block just like Latin, *or* you can > >>choose to learn the fundamentals (granted, arbitrary, but at least > >>expressing something more fundamental about the sound, so there are > >>fewer components for more expressiveness) and work from first principles. > > > > I.e, you can learn it just as easily as the Latin – which you already know – or you can > learn > > a much more complex set of associations to do the work of the Latin alphabet – which you > already > > know. > > Point: clarification. > > I prefaced my point with "If you are unfamiliar with the alphabet". > This did not express what I meant it to. Here, and elsewhere too I > think, I should have written instead "If you are unfamiliar with both > alphabets, and had to learn one or the other". As noted earlier, it is just not clear which is the easier to learn to the useful level. In this ignorance, this cannot be taken as a useful argument. > Point: uncontested. > > With my new qualifier, you do not invalidate my point. Drop all the > "which you already know" bits, and what's left is, yes, you have a > choice. Choice is good. You appear to be trying to make this a reasoned choice. The problenm is that your reasons don't clearly point the way you want to go. > Besides that, backing away from a phonetic alphabet to a phonemic one > (which is my new position), you're now down to learning fewer > associations. That makes the alternative in the choice more appealing. > > >>* It teaches some physical aspects of speech. This could be an > >>advantage to some people who have difficulty elocuting. > > > > And this is relevant to Lojban how? > > Point: uncontested. > > I was not making points about Lojban. I was making points about > advantages of VS/Lhoerr. I stated that clearly. But this is all in the context of application to Lojban. I assume that the fact that VS or RPA teeaches about the physical spects of speech leads ultimately to some point about its being right for Lojban. The connection, however, has not been made. No one argues that VS and RPA are not useful for studying the physical acts of speech production. > >>* More expressive for foreign sounds. (But the 'core' symbol set used > >>in regular day-to-day Lojban still need not be ridiculously large.) > > > > Relevance? > > Point: uncontested, already addressed. > > I was not making points about Lojban, and Lojban *is* intended to > represent foreign sounds when necessary. And does so just like every othr language (though seeing chunks of Engldsih in the midst of Chinese or Japanese is a bit of a shock). > >>* Written-spoken isomorphism (which some consider a disadvantage). > > > > More just an irrelevancy. > > Point: uncontested. > > I was not making points about Lojban. See above.Why bring it in then? > >>* It's fun to learn something new. Isn't that why we're learning Lojban > >>in the first place? > > > > Well, no –at least for some of us. > > Point: conceded. > > >>Disadvantages of VS/Lhoerr: > >>* More people will have to learn the symbol set. (Not a major point, > >>IMHO. People all around the world are about equally *capable* of > >>learning VS/Lhoerr. This seems to be to be a more important long-term > >>goal.) > > > > But the added work for no gain is a negative factor: we know the Latin alphabet or, if not, it > is > > easier to learn than VS. > > Point: clarification. > > This is the other place I should have said something like "If you are > unfamiliar with both alphabets, and had to learn one or the other" > > Point: mostly already addressed. And responded to. > *We*, you and I, know the Latin alphabet. Lojban is bigger than us. > > "easier to learn than VS": but always at least as difficult as, and (I > imagine) most of the time more difficult than, learning a representative > phonemic alphabet. I'm going to start using RPA in my posts, for > 'representative phonemic alphabet', rather than VS. As noted, not obviously the case. > "for no gain" does not apply. VS has advantages. A representative > phonemic alphabet has advantages. Maybe not for you personally, but > Lojban is bigger than you. Still haven't show any advantages for the bigger Lojban. > >>* Written-spoken isomorphism (which I consider an advantage, a direct > >>extension of the 'phonemic representation' ideal, which is already > >>agreed to be an advantage). > > > > Relevance? > > Point: uncontested. > > >>* Meaning, encoded in slight geometrical features on symbols, can be > >>difficult for people not sensitive to such geometries to detect and > >>process correctly. This one, I may not be able to wangle my way out of. > >> I shall have to ponder... > >> > >>My bias is obvious. Anyone care to add to this table? > >> > >>mi'e .xius. > > *phew* > > > --- Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > > > > > >>John E Clifford wrote: > >> > >>>Nah! The wikipedia contains a contemporary review which still applies nearly 150 years > later. > >>>The analysis is faulty (though Bell Jr corrected some of it).The so-called > representationalism > >>is > >>>largely arbitrary -- better than the Just-So stories but nothing to help a trained > >>articulatory > >>>phonologist. > >> > >>Granted, the representationalism in the symbols *is* fairly arbitrary at > >>its lowest level, as are the modifiers to those symbols. But the > >>compound symbols (which are most of the letters) are consistent, logical > >>applications of those modifiers to the base symbols. As such, it is > >>clearly superior to the Latin alphabet in that respect. And consistency > >>and logic are respects that are valued highly in Lojbanistan, as I > >>understand. > > > > > > As usual, “logical” here adds nothing to the tale – at least so far. The rules are > > consistently applied – for the most part, but the analyses are in several cases faulty. > > Point: granted. > > VS is not ideal. But it points in a direction worth going in. I'll use > 'RPA' to represent that direction, from now on. > > > And > > learning the rules and calculating out the effects of their applications is a much more > complex > > task than just applying the correlations given directly by the Latin forms. > > Point: missed, irrelevant. > > Learning the rules of pronounciations of letters in English and the > effects of their applications on words is a much more complex task than > just recognising a word and saying it. That doesn't invalidate the idea > that a more regular phonemic representation is better than, say, English > spelling. I'm proposing an exact parallel. (More below.) But Lojban already has -- as English does not -- a phonemic alphabet. How does the representational part improve matters? > > To be sure, this > > complexity is largely irrelevant (except that it keeps being offered as an advantage), since > we > > will use the symbols much the way we use the Latin ones, without recalculating each time. > > You're putting words in my mouth. As I've said before, I won't let you > misrepresent me. Sorry, I thought I was just commenting on my own point: that RPA is more complex. I don't expect you to admit that yet -- though I have made a case for it. > The regularity, and depth of representation, (and now, fewer components > of RPA than the Latin alphabet,) are what I offer as advantages. > > As has been pointed out in another thread, even the letters aren't the > fundamental units of recognition for a fluent person reading a text. > Words are the units. So, if words are the units, why not have symbols > for each word? There too many of them to do regularly, and the > designers of the language decided that fewer representations of a more > basic property of the word (phonemes), put together in a structured way > would be better. These are few enough that it's "no big deal" that they > themselves are not regular. But I propose that fewer representations of > a more basic property of phonemes (symbols for the shape of the mouth, > etc.), put together in a structured way would be better. > > The relationship of IPA components to phonemes is the same as the > relationship of phonemes to words. Words don't *need* to be broken to > phonemes, but it's a 'good thing', mostly because there are fewer. > Phonemes don't *need* to be broken to individual properties of parts of > the mouth, but there are fewer, they can be (somewhat) regularly > categorized: is this not a 'good thing' in the same way? > > > But in > > that case, why change from the ones we know to another we know not > > Point: scope > > I see Lojban as being bigger than you or I. What you or I know or don't > know is a small consideration in the reductionist philosophy that has > extended from long before we were born to long after we're dead. What reductionist philosophy" Are you calling using alphabets rather than ideograms reductionist? That seems strange (not one of the half dozen notions I thought of). In any case, it was a long time ago and does not apply directly to Lojban. I think it unlikely that the Latin alphabet is going to disappear soon. > > (and which are even harder to > > deal with than the familiar ones). > > Point: opinion > > I disagree. Children learn the alphabet, and phonemes, before they > learn words. Learning these things is hard, but it makes the larger > structures of words easier. This is dubious developmental psychology. Phonemes the child learns very early of course, since it soon learns to talk the language of its environement. Letters and words are learned different ways by different people and indeed by different teaching techniques. Phonics -- the worst possible way to learn English -- starts with letters and builds words, most kids who learn to read before they get in the hands of a reading teacher learn letters and words almost simultaneously and apparently learn words first and come to the letters by analysis (using the easy words that kiddy lit uses, where the connections work moderately well). There are other experiments that suggest differently, of course. > Eventually, the letters get lost in the > words, words are seen as a whole, but the letters are still there, and > still valuable. Learning the fundamentals of how the mouth moves, apart > from being a valuable knowledge and skill in and of itself, I opine is > easier (and more fundamental) than learning letters. Learning to move your mouth parts in the appropriate way to speak your language is very early and essential; learning what your mouth parts are doing is totally unnecessary unless you need some sort of remediation (including learning another language after about age five). And it is very hard work (I worked as a remediator for a while, with adults). > And after these > skills are mastered, it makes the larger structure of phonemes easier in > just the same way as mastering phonemes makes words easier. The > components will get lost in the letters, letters will be seen as a > whole, but the components are still there, and still valuable. As noted phonemes are mastered before even getting the mouth to move rightly is and certainly before conscious manipulation fo the apparatus (which may never come). So, we learn phonemes without any sense of what goes on in the mouth. How then is knowing what goes on on the mouth -- or rather calling attention it -- going to help us make associations with letters. It seems to be adding an irrelevant extra step (or more). -- skip the stuff about how VS works (or RPA for that matter)-- > > Visual symbolic representation of pronunciation space and word space is > a requirement of Lojban (so it is more than a spoken language, it is a > written language too). Right; but that doesn't mean that that representaion needs to involve representations of how the sounds are made, so long as it is phonemically accurate and lays out the range of possibilities, which is as easy in the Latin alphabet as in RPA. > Lojban is designed to be 'good'. As such, best use of pronunciation > space and word space is relavent. [learn how this word is spelled, the error occurs to often to be a plausibke typo] > > Or are you proposing that, all other things being equal, > less-than-best-use is what you'd *prefer* for Lojban? Tis presupposes that VS or RPA is better than the Latin alphabet. This has not been demonstrated p-- nor relevantly touched on. > > My point was just that the symbols in VS are in no sense > > “natural” symbols for the articulatory mechanism, so that one could read off the > articulation > > from the symbols without considerable training in the rules of the representation system. > > Point: uncontested. > > Perhaps no more natural. But definitely no more unnatural. And > definitely fewer (with IPA instead of VS), and definitely representative > of more fundamental actions of speaking words. Surely "g" represents a voiced velar stop (non-plosive) as well as a sqiggle that contains all those elements represented separately. It just doesn't do it analytically -- the virtue of which remains undemonstrated for ordinary use. > >>In this respect, Lojban will not educate a linguist, but an educated > >>linguist can help in the formulation of Lojban. > >> > >> > >>>And (not mentioned) the fact that similar sounds are represented by similar > >>>characters merely carries over into writing the common confusions in speech (not a desirable > >>>written-spoken isomorphism). > >> > >>I did mention it in my original post, or at least I tried to, with my > >>'b' 'd' 'g' example. > >> > >>I'm not sure I agree. I'd be interested to hear more about how you come > >>to this conclusion. Written-spoken isomorphism is *very* desirable. > >>It's the very reason Lojban has a phonemic alphabet. It is desirable to > >>as much and as precise a degree as possible. > > > > My point is just that, if we confuse two related sounds in the speech stream because they are > > similar, it is not an advantage to have them also easily confused in the letter stream by > making > > them similar again. One use of writing is exactly to overcome speech confusions. > > Point: ... I'm confused. > > That would be better accomplished by having a one-word-to-one-symbol > mapping. Maybe a one-sentence-to-one-symbol mapping. But Lojban goes > in the other direction: it represents shorter, more fundamental aspects > of utterances, of sentences, of words, of phonemes. The direction > Lojban takes is exactly opposite to the direction you're proposing. > > >>Confusions occur both in speech and text. Would it be better for these > >>confusions to be unrelated, independent? Put it this way: If you see a > >>word that is obviously misspelled, what do you do? You vocalize it in > >>your mind, think ov words that sound the same, and see if they fit into > >>the sentence properly. You go from the visual to the auditory world. > >>Phonemic spelling makes that transition easier. But VS makes the > >>transition entirely unnecessary: a misspelling of that nature in VS can > >>be analyzed in that fashion entirely in the visual world. Assuming > >>you're not deaf, maybe not a big deal to you, 'v' and 'f' being very > >>different symbols are still closely related in your mind, but perhaps to > >>a deaf person, having the symbols for 'v' and 'f' be similar as the > >>sounds are similar might make the job a bit easier. > > > > I am not sure your description of what happens is accurate, but even supposing it is, it does > not > > answer to the problem I was referring to. It does raise another though (not applicable to > Lojban, > > which has no homonyms): we convert all the homophones into homoglyphs so little is gained in > the > > way of intelligibility (though the old homoglyphs will by and large disappear – sometimes > into > > new ones, like the “read”s. > > Point: scope. > > In the current system, and in RPA, homophones are all represented as > homoglyphs. Is that *enough*? Enough for what? I take that to be undesirable. Homophones -- with different spellings -- are actually much less a problem than homoglyphs, since at least in writing they are distinguished. Converting them to homoglyphs is a net loss. > In a one-symbol-to-one word mapping, Do you mean one-symbol-one sound? > homophones are all represented as > homoglyphs. That is *not* enough. Symbols are chosen to represent > smaller features of words (phonemes). What was the motivation to choose > phoneme-level symbol mapping rather than word-level symbol mapping? Why > does it not apply to property-of-phoneme-level symbol mapping better > than phoneme-level symbol mapping? The same reasoning applied to the represntation of phones question leads to using the altin alphabet, since the "reasoning" was just "go with what you know." > Lojban has a requirement for a word-symbol mapping. I see the scope of > that as being larger than you see it. I can see the alrger scope; I just can't see how it leads to your conclusion. > > My problem was, remember, that the easily confused speech forms are > > now represented by easily confused written forms, importing into the writing a kind of > confusion > > that was less present before (p, b, d, q and g are less easily confused in speech than in > writing, > > though are somewhat). > > 'b' and 'p' are similar sounding and similar looking. In that respect, > this pair already embodies the RPA. So I shall try to make my point > with these existing symbols and their existing associations. > > Someone transcribing the goings-on at a party mishears "beer" and writes > "peer". A person who knows no English, is deaf and mute, and has a > small English dictionary (strangely lacking a phonetic guide), reads "I > drank my peer". After studying the dictionary, he becomes very > confused. One of the words must be wrong, he comes to realise; but > which one? He could read the whole English dictionary, and educate > himself in the language until it becomes obvious what the intended > meaning was. But that's terribly tedious; he wants to take a short-cut. If he knows English at all, he knows the similarities between p and b (even if he can't hear them), so he knows these are possible hearing or transcription errors and will check this out immediately -- well alond with checking possibilities with "drank" (none at the first pass). He has a shortcut. To be sure, since transcription errors of this sort are more likely with RPA, he will probably be more skilled if he is using that. > He wants it to be easy. He decides to look up words 'like' the ones > written until he comes across a combination that makes sense. How is he > to know one word is 'like' another? In this case, the fact that 'b' > looks like 'p' *and* 'b' sounds like 'p' gives him a very important > clue. He looks up "beer" and aha!, it all makes sense now. > > The similarity of sub-phoneme components of the spoken 'b' and 'p' being > reflected in the similarity of the geometric shapes of the symbols 'b' > and 'p' works in this guy's favour. As noted, the transcription errors are also more common, leading to more experience. But the information used here is equally available -- non-analytically -- in the Latin alphabet. > > >>In fact, changing 'of' to 'ov' brings up so many more issues than just > >>that, so it's probably not as good an example as I'd like it to be. But > >>it demonstrates a transition from the visual to the auditory that can be > >>done away with using VS. > > > > Only in the sense that “ov” in the new system would not be a misspelling (for some > people); > > the confusion with “’ ve” now appears in writing as well as speech. > > Point: lost. > > I'm lost here. Since I was already making the point that 'ov' was going > beyond the realm of the topic at hand, I'll just drop it. Good move on your part, since it illustrates a swerious problem with phonemic spelling in English. > >>Further, when reading a handwritten page, the mind automatically fills > >>in meaning where there are smudges, or slightly askew lines, stuff like > >>that. That very same mechanism will work in favour of making slight > >>transcription errors more easily understandable. > > > > As indeed they now do (witness reading my typing). The whole issue of handwriting is an > > interesting one: what would a running script that kept all the relevant features of VS look > like? > > Is it feasible at all? It is bound to be slower than our present hand in any case. Again, > > however, it worls by Gestalt – why reading an unfamiliar hand is so hard at first, until you > get > > the correspondences down (going back to learning to read in effect). > > Point: ?? > > Um, your typing isn't smudged. "it worls by Gestalt", I take as being > an (intentional?) typo of "it works by Gestalt", embodying the other > type of 'writo'. So I'm going to run with that. I was using a program with automatic spell-checker on that last reply, so my error rate was down. It generally runs about 25% or a slight bit less. In tjhis case, notice, the clue is to look at the typewriter keyboard, not the phonemes at all. It is, by the way, essentially the same type of error as mispronunciation through inattention. > My poor deaf-mute sees your sentence. Again he gets confused, "worls" > is not in the dictionary. You and I know, this is a fundamentally > different *type* of error than mishearing and transcribing auditory > mistakes. But my poor suffering subject is deaf-mute, and knows nothing > of this. > > So, what does he do? He searches his dictionary for words which look > visually similar to what he sees, "worls". He sees that with just the > addition of two small line segments, the word may potentially be > "works". He puts it all together, and is overjoyed. > > What did he do different this time? Nothing. A misheard transcription > is an error as easily fixed, by the same means, as a slipped pen. This > IMHO is a good feature of error-tolerance. > > Take, for example, how you or I would handle dealing with either case. > I personally don't believe in the literal 'grandmother neuron', but I do > believe it is a phenomenon, and I'm going to use it as a guide to > illustrate my thought-process. > > We see "peer" out of place, but because I'm subvocalising as I read (I > don't know if you do too), the 'beer' neuron fires because it's in close > proximity to the 'peer' neuron (by reason of we speak and hear words > frequently, and on some levels neurons represent lower-level > sound-patterns such as phonemes and phoneme components as well as > word-patterns), and it much better fits the context. We see "worls" out > of place, and it takes a little longer, but the "works" neuron fires > because it's in somewhat close proximity to the 'worls' neuron (by > reason of we look at symbols frequently, and on some levels neurons > represent line segments and geometrical components of letters as well as > letters themselves), and it much better fits the context. > > You see what happened there? I (I'm assuming you, too, but I don't want > to overstep my allowed assumption-space) used two *different* avenues to > resolve the two different cases. My deaf-mute used *one* avenue, and it > worked for both, exactly *because* of the component-of-phoneme to > component-of-symbol isomorphism. I am not at all sure that the process is anything like that. I tend not even to see most typos, even in other people's work because they occur within the word and so below consciousness. This gets me into trouble occasionally, when the other of two similar,words is meant (see thre runaround about "parental" "prenatal" and "paternal" elsewhere on this thread). For typos that do get caught I consider typing: what keys are next to on another, and -- probably first -- metathesis, finger firing out of order. I suppose something like this applies as well, mutatis mutandis, for spoken errors and transcription errors. (I do subvocalize, all too often not quite sub). > >what would a running script that kept all the relevant features of VS > look like? > > Is it feasible at all? > > Point: agreed. > > These questions have value. Do you have answers to these questions? Do > you think it's better not to ask these questions? Don't you think it's > an avenue of thought that at least deserves a look down? Hey, I asked them and I don't waste a lot of space. > > It is bound to be slower than our present hand in any case. > > Point: contested. > > I'd like to see you back this statement. Well, it stands to reason (to use something like your usual ultimate backup) that if there are three items that have to be placed exactly at the risk of getting the whole wrong, doing this requires more care and time than one swift curve. That is, naturally, not a very convincing argument; it is merely what I was going on. I suppose that some empirical test could be -- and probably have been -- carried out to check, but I don't know the results. > >>There are some fun jokes that involve expressing visual puns verbally, > >>or more commonly, verbal puns visually. They're so much fun because > >>they're delayed-reaction jokes, it takes a second (or a day) to 'get' > >>it. VS will pretty much kill those kinds of jokes. What is a verbal > >>pun, is a visual pun (or is more likely to be perceived as bad > >>transcription). I enjoy those jokes. But they are, fundamentally, > >>misunderstandings and misrepresentations. They don't belong in Lojban. > > > > And are virtually impossible in Lojban already, as those who have tried them have found. > There > > are a few metAathesis jokes but that is about all. > > Point: agreed. > > >>As to *need*: The Latin alphabet *is* all you need to represent Lojban, > >>it's true. And it has the dubious advantage of being familiar to many > >>people in the world (more on that later). But then, English is all you > >>*need* for anything you'd want to say in Lojban, and it is also familiar > >>to many people in the world. Lojban is not about stopping at mere need, > >>otherwise it wouldn't exist. No, Lojban doesn't *need* VS. The world > >>doesn't need Lojban. But the world *has* Lojban, because people were > >>(and still are) enamoured with ideas such as creating a useful, > >>culture-neutral communication system. > > > > It is not clear that anyone really wants this > > Point: incorrect. > > I really want it. There's that dismissiveness again. You *know* that > it *is* clear that I want it. I am (in potentia) 'anyone'. English universals are almost always to be understood as excepting present company and an unspecified (but relativley small) group of others. It is dismissive, it is just conventional shorthand. In addition to which, I didn't know you were interested in cultural neutrality. > > nor that it is a reason why someone learns Lojban > > Point: irrelavent. > > The wide spacing of digits in sound-space I have cited as a favourable > feature of Lojban. I severely doubt that this is a reason why *anyone* > wants to learn Lojban. The IPA, I propose, would be a favourable > feature of Lojban. I claim no more than that. I never suggested it > would become a *reason* for someone to learn Lojban. MY worry is that it migh be a reason NOT to learn Lojban were it in place. > > (and it is even less clear that Lojban is culturally neutral in any relevant sense). > > *sigh* > > Google: > Lojban "culturally neutral" > and tell me what you see. Most of the Google pointers are to old pieces of propaganda from LLG. The problem is that they rarely spell out what "cultural neutrality" means and, when they do, often come up with features that Lojban lacks. Historically it has meant that Lojban does not grammatically prefer one type of grammar (at some level) to another but that all are represented in good Lojban equally easily.My quick list on obvious exceptions to this fills several closely-written pages. To take the easiest, Lojban is the most thoroughly SAE language ever, making it too culturally biased to be used for a test of the one version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that either S or W ever came close to formulating. At a much lower level, a skim through the vocabulary shows that this is the language of late 20th century computer geeks in the first world and reasonably comfortable -- just us, in fact (vocabulary isn't supposed to count, but let's face it, Lojban is not well-equipped to express the plight of Thai sweatshop workers). Sigh back at ya (and one with thirty years of saying this behind it) > That's three misses in one sentence. All looked right on to me. > Point: I'm about to get emotional again. > > What *is* this? Is this some kind of sparring match? I get the > increasing notion you're *actively* missing the points I'm trying to > make, you are *sabotaging* the formation of a common understanding. NO, I am pointing out that you are either unclear or relying on not generally accepted information to make your case or that the moves from your premises to your conclusions need strengthening. It may be that I do misunderstand what you mean; I tend to go by what you say. > (I'm giving you credit for being intelligent. It's either that, or the > notion that you're ignorant, and wilfully so, so I'm being charitable in > my evaluation.) While sparring is fun occasionally, this is just > getting tedious. Yeah, this is hard work. You can stop any time, but if you are serious and care enough, you can also come to formulate a clear argument for your proposal. > Is this some kind of hazing ritual, to see if I have > the determination and skill to stick at my guns in the face of > adversity, to prove I'm 'worthy' to join your cabal? To hell with that. > I am offering an idea. I want you to understand the idea, because I > enjoy it and I think you might enjoy it too if you let yourself, but if > you're determined not to accept this gift I offer, that's your problem. > I'll offer it, but I won't break my back over it. Combat zone as it > may be, there are still rules of engagement. Okay. I am a logician. I like to have things precise, especially arguments. Then, once it is clear what the argument is, I like to evaluate it: first the premises of the argument, then the strength of inference from them to the conclusion. False premises and weak inferences call forth severe comments. The goal is eventually to either get a good argument for something that is being proposed or convince the proposer to drop it, since no good argument is forthcoming. In your case, I have barely gotten beyond the first stage, getting a clear argument. What is beyond it has been a couple of premises that are clearly false. I suspect that, were they tidied up, the infwerences would also be weak, but that issue has not arisen yet, I think. the process is the same for everyone (ask xorxes, for example -- we go around about a couple of things a cople of times a year). There is no initiation, no cabal, it just how I do business. You can ignore what I say (most people do, in fact) or you can get to work and polish up your argument and then abide by the results (whidh may be different from my evaluation, of course). But I hope that eventually, if you go on with this, you will present the best argument you can for your position. So far as I can see, my judgment is almost sure to be negative, but I hope you have some points I don't foresee to bring in (from past version of this, I notice a couple that you haven't used yet, but it is not my job to suggest them). 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.