From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jan 05 03:04:46 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NS7DR-0007gY-7d for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:04:46 -0800 Received: from mail-px0-f200.google.com ([209.85.216.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NS7D7-0007d8-S0 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:04:32 -0800 Received: by pxi38 with SMTP id 38so5386109pxi.28 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:04:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=cSlWnntZQuM8u9/TdYyK5TzXmqDPD8aX4SsnWnaOnyc=; b=h7GnYQO7D8jl0e3NnQgDe7TtwR1grgv8IrQOBOnCrsXHjTd2FwweXp4U97gyPWvGtA 1fe5XOCdtbYIz+bOvZzG+6LxrzZLvUP39TUwlxSWP3Pyhx+uMRo3pI8PLDgijT+1REHH SyeZGt/C4Yz2JthRwjRyX8RGbJwCVW9uYuJNg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=M3lskpOxlt20CaEUGYsgB7mag3KprVa9vuXMIY4rO3aIb74nkUZXdseNGtSvJy6djx tDfYBnfMW2UBWLyH4G1DTeLdFTgES+R+tEVE4JSOgsTl+7rVJCa1tSxtQa6r1BD9qJPi XLKMrqbiZ0isnSRletcVjAumTWvOZxaq9LqnY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.195.18 with SMTP id s18mr15711726wff.50.1262689459479; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:04:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8CC5AA7171DCAE9-8FA8-1F578@webmail-d065.sysops.aol.com> <55b258c21001030921o36fa5cf6s2b1047ca0ddca20c@mail.gmail.com> From: Oren Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:03:59 +0800 Message-ID: <27513e551001050303p37e2744bx6da04dac2a29ef6a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Initial impression To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd14468b1a6da047c68cc45 X-archive-position: 16798 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: get.oren@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --000e0cd14468b1a6da047c68cc45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Lojban looks really strange? Indeed indeed indeed... and I feel that goes along nicely with 'being culturally neutral' Surely when reading English we recognize the general shapes of words, not each individual morpheme, tahts why tihs is sltil pertty legilbe. Note that chinese characters, with distinct shapes, generally are read faster than alphabetic text. I think that ascii lojban should be no counterexample, and that the limited number of characters and words may even increase its potential for speed reading or skimming (with practice, of course). I think the propinquity and ubiquity of romanized alphabets with Capitals and punc!uation marks is to blame for lojban looking jarring (as it does to me too), but I'm sure that I'll get used to it. co'o P.S. Actually, I'm also really interested in alternative alphabets or standardized fonts/ color-coding ideas, but I keep being drawn back to the universality of ascii, since I don't really see a substantial objective argument against it. On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 18:30, Klaus F. Abel wrote: > Thanks Craig and others for the great responses! Of course, I shall give it > a little time to settle in. Quirks I like, but upon seeing the first real > Lojban text, the translation of Kafka's Metamorphosis, my eyes were truly > bleeding. Even the first blurb of cyrillic that I ever saw was easier to > read than that. It's because how humans read text as opposed to machines. > The parser gobbles up character by character and is not bothered by how it > looks like. But humans don't read that way, except in while they're learning > in childhood. Humans capture entire sentences or at least parts of them as a > whole image, and then break it further down. Make an experiment: Blur your > vision seeing a piece of English text versus Lojban. Capitals and > interpunction stand out and thus give an immediate impression of the overall > structure in English. That makes things a whole lot easier. With few > remaining imperfections that can irritate capture (apostrophe for genitives, > period for abbreviations), this has evolved over centuries for a good reason > and is now thrown out with no adequate replacement. Beautification is not an > end in itself, it has very practical utility. Think Feng Shui: Although it > is quite unscientific as there is no real energy flowing around, it deals a > lot with humans' perception of their environment. There are more modern > approaches now tackling theory of perception, even preconscious processing, > but not all of that is necessary study, when a little sense for aesthetics > helps progress just as well. But neglecting the mechanisms of human > perception will not help gaining acceptance of a language with an otherwise > brilliant concept. > > Cheers :) > > Klaus > > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:21:15 +0100, Craig Daniel > wrote: > > ... >> >> There are three; I'll address them individually below. But personally >> I think once you get used to it (which only took me about two weeks) >> they're really not so bad. >> >> ... >> > > > > 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. > > --000e0cd14468b1a6da047c68cc45 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lojban looks really strange? Indeed indeed indeed... and I= feel that goes along nicely with 'being culturally neutral'
Surely when reading English we recognize the general shapes of= words, not each individual morpheme, tahts why tihs is sltil pertty legilb= e. Note that chinese characters, with distinct shapes, generally are read f= aster than alphabetic text. I think that ascii lojban should be no countere= xample, and that the limited number of characters and words may even increa= se its potential for speed reading or skimming (with practice, of course).<= div>
I think the propinquity and ubiquity of romanized alphabets = with Capitals and punc!uation marks is to blame for lojban looking jarring = (as it does to me too), but I'm sure that I'll get used to it.

co'o

P.S. Actually, I'm als= o really interested in alternative alphabets or standardized fonts/ color-c= oding ideas, but I keep being drawn back to the universality of ascii, sinc= e I don't really see a substantial objective argument against it.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 18:30, Klaus F. = Abel <kfa@gmx.net&g= t; wrote:
Thanks Craig and others for the great responses! Of course, I shall give it= a little time to settle in. Quirks I like, but upon seeing the first real = Lojban text, the translation of Kafka's Metamorphosis, my eyes were tru= ly bleeding. Even the first blurb of cyrillic that I ever saw was easier to= read than that. It's because how humans read text as opposed to machin= es. The parser gobbles up character by character and is not bothered by how= it looks like. But humans don't read that way, except in while they= 9;re learning in childhood. Humans capture entire sentences or at least par= ts of them as a whole image, and then break it further down. Make an experi= ment: Blur your vision seeing a piece of English text versus Lojban. Capita= ls and interpunction stand out and thus give an immediate impression of the= overall structure in English. That makes things a whole lot easier. With f= ew remaining imperfections that can irritate capture (apostrophe for geniti= ves, period for abbreviations), this has evolved over centuries for a good = reason and is now thrown out with no adequate replacement. Beautification i= s not an end in itself, it has very practical utility. Think Feng Shui: Alt= hough it is quite unscientific as there is no real energy flowing around, i= t deals a lot with humans' perception of their environment. There are m= ore modern approaches now tackling theory of perception, even preconscious = processing, but not all of that is necessary study, when a little sense for= aesthetics helps progress just as well. But neglecting the mechanisms of h= uman perception will not help gaining acceptance of a language with an othe= rwise brilliant concept.

Cheers :)

Klaus

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:21:15 +0100, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:=

...

There are three; I'll address them individually below. But personally I think once you get used to it (which only took me about two weeks)
they're really not so bad.

...



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.


--000e0cd14468b1a6da047c68cc45-- 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.