Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tNRWL-0000ZUC; Wed, 6 Dec 95 23:36 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id CE514716 ; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:36:53 +0100 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:06:35 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: buffer vowel X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 970 Lines: 18 > >The difference is that with natlangs you have clearly specified rules, etc > >but that we cope pretty easily with the rules being broken, and rampant > >rule breaking is constrained only by the need to remain comprehensible, > >while with lojban there are no rules (of the relevant type) but the > >need to be comprehensible means interlocutors must adopt ad hoc ones. > Hunh? Natlangs have NO clearly specified rules for anything. And Lojban > has LOTS of specified rules (not sure how clearly), and only one not-too > specific rule that constrains how one may violate the other rules in a > failure mode (since I view buffereing as a failure mode) At present I think it reasonable to presume that natlangs do have clearly specified rules, which is why we can speak them, especially when learnt from birth. For Lojban there are no rules mapping 7 vowel phonemes to vowel space, and all that constrains any arbitrary mapping is the need to be understood. --- And