From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Mar 31 09:26:51 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 26177 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2005 17:26:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Mar 2005 17:26:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2005 17:26:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DH3RN-000509-AP for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:26:45 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DH3Ql-0004zf-K8; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:26:09 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DH3QZ-0004zF-Sv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:25:55 -0800 Received: from web81310.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.85]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DH3QW-0004yl-QM for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:25:55 -0800 Message-ID: <20050331172521.5258.qmail@web81310.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:25:21 PST Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:25:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9734 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 X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: fu'ivla X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24090 Stop me if I am wrong, but I think I detect under your practical problem of writing something written in a slavic alphabet in the "lojban" alphabet a deepeer "philosophic" problem, which I would put loosely as "A language to be used for international communication ought to have an alphabet in which expressions from any (major?) language could be written easiily." If that is indeed one of your points (along with the point that the old Slavic alphabet seems to satisfy that need and the Lojban alphabet does not), I see several problems. 1. The alphabret for a given language -- even an international one -- is the alphabet for *that* language. It needs to be able to represent all the sounds of that language, but it would be wasteful for it to have separate symbols for sounds that never occur in that language directly, but only in quotations and the like from some other languages. In the case of Lojban, the alphabet exactly fits the language -- by design; other languages are either barely approximated (and Lojban does as well by Slavic languages as it does by English in this repect) or else it imports (courtesy of the vast storage capacity of computers to which Lojban is intimately attached) the alphabet of the quoted language (spoken Lojban, of course, is stuck either with the approximations or with a case of code-shifting to produce reasonably accurate speech in the other language). 2. There is not alphabet -- other than the IPA -- that does this job across the board. The Lojban version of the Latin alphabet does fairly well on Slavic, I recall, but not so well on English, and pretty terribly on Chinese and Hindi. The Slavic alphabet does pretty well with Lojban but has much the same problems as Lojban with English, Chinese and Hindi. The Chinese version of the Latin alphabet does pretty poorly across the board, thanks to the very small phonetic range of Chinese. Devanagari (Hindi) is not so hot for any of the others. The English version of the Latin alphabet manages to do fairly well for many other languages by having incorporated a variety of codings -- digraphs and even trigraphs -- with conventions for using them in various other languages (they overlap some from langauge to language, so that, if you know how to work with them, you need to know what language it is before you can figure out what it sounds like). But none of them has a symbol for every sound in every (even major) language (and some are short even on conventional devices for representing other languages). 3. Aside from names, an international language (and, note, being an international language is not a central goal of Lojban design, though it is a pleasant side benefit) wants precisely to steer clear of local expressions and replace them with expressions understood across a variety of native languages and cultures; local words are emergency devices when all else fails (or are in for "color"). So an international language will actively avoid things (like easing pronunciation rules or having extra alphabets) which promote local language use in the context of the international language. In short, while the point I take you to be making is an interesting one -- raising perhaps a different notion of an international language -- it does not seem to be a practical goal and so failing to meet it is not to be counted against Lojban or any other language. --- ignat 99 wrote: > > coi rodo > > Etruscans <-> eto_rus_(lo rusko ku) <-> rysich > (name of old rus) > > ch <-> (ch .tcriyviys. bu tcys. bu) > This letter and sound is absent in Lojban > > Take the good alphabet: > http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/DBLM/olcourse/sanskrit/s-alpha-1.htm > or > http://www.lojban.org/en/publications/reference_grammar/chapter17.html#s17 > + old letterals > > :-)) > > ki'e > ignat > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:08:10 -0500, Adam COOPER > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:01:46 +0900, ignat 99 > wrote: > > > coi rodo > > > But Old Russian alphabet has 44 letters and > new has 33. > > > But in the American alphabet only 24 > letters. It is still less in > > > lojban. It means one Russian letter > necessary to transfer by several > > > American. But more rational it would be > make vice versa. As the base > > > to take the Russian alphabet, but not > American alphabet. > > > > > > But now, for the transfer of one letter in > lojban, I must use 4-5 letters? > > > > AFAIK The focus of the Loglan/Lojban project > was primarily meaning: > > one ought to be able to express any concept > in Lojban. Phonologically, > > it makes sense to *minimize* the number of > phonemes in the language, > > in order to maximize pronounceability of the > language for all people. > > > > If you want to translate an Old Russian text > for international > > understanding, Lojban is a good choice. If > you want to *transliterate* > > an Old Russian text for international > pronunciation, a good bet is > > IPA. > > > > By the way, Evgeny is right. It's not the > American alphabet. The > > Americans got it from the British, who got it > from the Romans, who got > > it from the Etruscans, who got it (I think) > from the Phoenicians in > > about 600 BC or so. Sorry -- BCE. > > > > mu'o mi'e .adam. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, send mail to > lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own > computers. > At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital > Divide! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/GSaulB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > > To unsubscribe, send mail to > lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > >