From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Nov 13 18:54:04 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:54:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GjoQj-0007py-HL for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:53:45 -0800 Received: from web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.117]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GjoQb-0007ph-I7 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:53:45 -0800 Received: (qmail 10912 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Nov 2006 02:53:24 -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=usl8bLVEKdvFQdqE7Q7WWvvYN7n/YFSFg9I8r2r2syPAR99hZqpXQuBQykSCDHe3vK2QK6SHfmuf1vTeioe0iuEGfpswh4G9t1Hyf60TUCFChr57cfX9K8Q0wltd1f/GEmZDN31ga9F18Yvry52Ig41OVyj8hUB6PAXTvKYeHxA= ; Message-ID: <20061114025324.10910.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.213.146] by web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:53:24 PST Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:53:24 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: "la" rule To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20061114013339.GB24729@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 13152 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 Audio=visual isomorphism, isn't the problem here, but the word-isolating algorithm{ {lastIvn.lAItl}is a written, visual form, corresponding exactly (let is suppose speech competence) the spoken (audio) utterance. The question now is, how to divide this into words and to classify them correctly. That is also supposed to be a part of Lojban and apparently fails without either the {la} etc prohibition or the preceding pause. I note in passing that obligatory pauses are as likely to be skipped as {la} is to be included in names. That is, neither of these solutions looks very practical. --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 08:29:32PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > The la rule isn't required with standard (spaces included) > > orthography, and without a speaking community. When we have a > > skilled speaking community, we can find out whether la in names in > > the spoken language causes problems for humans - after all, humans > > can parse English and other human languages successfully, and they > > aren't audiovisually isomorphic. > > So it's OK to leave a rule that people will often violate because > people can deal with that sort of thing? > > That's just... It's like you *want* to kill Lojban. > > I want a language that will *actually* have audio-visual > isomorphism. In practice. With real people. > > You, if the above is to be believed, don't actually care about that. > > -Robin > > -- > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ > Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" > Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ > > > 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. > > 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.