Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (psuvm.psu.edu [128.118.56.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id GAA29851 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 06:17:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199509161017.GAA29851@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7090; Sat, 16 Sep 95 06:01:08 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1120; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 06:00:56 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 11:00:38 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: lojb conv X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Sat Sep 16 06:17:25 1995 X-From-Space-Address: <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Jorge: > > I didn't get the impression that the speakers were that bothered about > > pauses or glottal stops or whatever. > I think I ignore them completely. A computer may get confused by that, > but humans can cope well. But it also tends to suggest - interestingly - that they're not natural word-boundary signallers. If you look at indicators of word-boundaries in natural languages, you find that stress, vowel harmony, obstruent devoicing, etc. are used in the grammar, but not pauses. But at the same time, those examples from NLs do show that there are functional pressures on languages to come up with ways to signal word-boundaries, so Lojban is not being unnatural in trying to do that, and is being merely Lojbanic in trying to take it to extremes. > > what would you use for a backchannel, like "right, > > yeah, mhm" etc.? > "Yeah" is easy: {ie}. I think {go'i} is good to express agreement, too. > To express understanding, I think {ki'anai} should work. Now that you mention {ie}, I think {aa} is actually rather good for this purpose. After all, one of the primary purposes of backchanneling is to signal attentiveness to the speaker. > > > .i LA'ezo XY. .e LA'ezo .Ybu .e LA'elu DENpabu LI'u .Enai lo DRAta > > > NA'e CMIma LE'i BANgu be MI SANce > > The set of languages spoken by you emit the sounds [x], [@] and [?] > > but not the other nonmembers??? KIe. > [ki'e=thanks; ki'a=???] kekkatso - I'm always getting those two confused. Like {kiu} and {kui}. > There should be a {cu} before {na'e cmima}, but you are reading a {cu} > before {sance} that is not there. {le'i bangu be mi sance} is "the set > of my language's sounds". Ah! It suddenly makes sense. A lot of people these days are developing theories of comprehension that rely very little on syntax. My Lojban comprehension would seem to counterexemplify them. --- And