From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jun 30 20:48:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 22937 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2006 03:48:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jul 2006 03:48:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2006 03:48:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FwWT6-0006iR-0v for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:48:28 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FwWRo-0006hr-Ql; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:47:10 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FwWRM-0006hd-IY for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:46:40 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FwWRJ-0006hU-MD for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:46:40 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l37so404075nfc for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.160.2 with SMTP id i2mr339607hue; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.33.3 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12d58c160606302046k5a8d7abbk4d747f36cbe6b8b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:46:36 -0400 Cc: hobyrne@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <44A5BC53.5040803@kli.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_18550_15754681.1151725596128" References: <20060630232721.15247.qmail@web56404.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <44A5BC53.5040803@kli.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 944a719b9f70e8f8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-archive-position: 11860 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: komfoamonan@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "komfo,amonan" From: "komfo,amonan" Reply-To: komfoamonan@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: [hobyrne: Alphabet] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=JC9ATCz0xY4VZAesWnhVcFukQ6V3WrLBcxjgC74zkKgkhLJyUw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26285 ------=_Part_18550_15754681.1151725596128 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 6/30/06, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > Now, to respond to the Lojban-specific points from Hugh O'Byrne... > > > From: Hugh O'Byrne > > To: lojban@lojban.org > > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:30:31 -0400 > > > > To whom it may concern, > > > > I adore Lojban. The biggest weakness it has, IMHO, is its alphabet. > > > > Recently, I came across "Visible Speech". The symbols of this > alphabet > > indicate the sound they represent by their shape. For example, 'b', > > 'd', and 'g' (as in bay, day, gay) are represented by the same > > symbol in > > three different orientations, because the sounds are so similar. > > 'm' is > > a nasal 'b' sound, so its symbol is similar to 'b', with a small > > modification. 'n' is a nasal 'd', so it's the 'd' symbol with the > same > > modification. 'ng' is a nasal 'g', so it's the 'g' symbol with the > > same > > modification. > > > You should know that VS is not unique in this, though it may be one of > the more developed and consistent such systems. I *think* there is some > basis to the claim that hangul is a featural script like this, and > certainly Tolkien's tengwar is. You can read about the featural properties of Hangul here: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul#Jamo_design > And tengwar suffers from the same > problem that VS does: all the letters are related and formed in neat > logical ways... which means that they all look alike!! Reading tengwar > takes a lot of practice, because all the letters look more or less > alike. Think how much trouble dyslexics (and even non-dyslexics) have > with d,b,p,q. Now imagine that the *entire alphabet* was like that. > (Want to mess yourself up? Take a text and have the computer replace > every [dbpq] with a *random* character from [dbpq]. Then try to read > it). I recall also Herman Miller has a phonetic alphabet called Lhoerr > or something like that which is similarly featural, rather like VS in > philosophy though not in actual design. > > The other thing, though, is that Lojban in particular doesn't *need* > VS. It is the non-solution to a non-problem in Lojban. In *English* it > would fill a need: English's writing system is a mess, and it's insanely > complex to deduce how to pronounce an unfamiliar word in general. It > also would be useful for the same purposes that we use the International > Phonetic Alphabet. But Lojban's writing is phonemic already. The > symbols are more or less arbitrary (though strangely familiar to huge > chunks of the literate world), but in order to learn to read with any > fluency you have to learn the symbols iconically, not as collections of > features, so you'd have to learn the VS symbols as if they were > arbitrary too. And once you have your 25-odd symbols learned, there's > no advantage to using VS. > > It's a nifty alphabet, but it doesn't seem to me to add anything to > Lojban. Lojban may add something to IT, though, since it can discuss > features unambiguously... I agree with Mark here. It sounds like Mr O'Byrne's objection to use of the Roman alphabet for Lojban is down to its 1) illogicality and 2) cultural bias. Understandable. But it seems that we don't think in terms of phonemes when we read. I don't reckon that the idea that /n/ is a nasal /d/ helps a reader very much and in fact it may hinder understanding. In situations where the minimal pairs lack a connection in their meanings (e.g. {na}/{da}, {po}/{bo}), there's not much advantage to expressing the phonemic connection in the writing system. When I learned hangul, I did so without knowing about its featural properties. And I think if I had, it would have slowed me down as I would struggle to figure out each letter according to the system rather than memorize them individually. That being said, hangul could be adapted for Lojban quite easily (in contravention to statements made at lojban.org); it's adapting that system for use on computers that would be hard \(>-^)/ mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan -- http://laxmahispajispaji.blogspot.com/ ro re'u se galfi de'i li 06 pi'e 29 ------=_Part_18550_15754681.1151725596128 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 6/30/06, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
Now, to respond to the Lojban-specific points from Hugh O'Byrne...

>     From: Hugh O'Byrne
>     To: lojban@lojban.org
>     Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:30:31 -0400
>
>     To whom it may concern,
>
>     I adore Lojban. The biggest weakness it has, IMHO, is its alphabet.
>
>     Recently, I came across "Visible Speech". The symbols of this alphabet
>     indicate the sound they represent by their shape. For example, 'b',
>     'd', and 'g' (as in bay, day, gay) are represented by the same
>     symbol in
>     three different orientations, because the sounds are so similar.
>     'm' is
>     a nasal 'b' sound, so its symbol is similar to 'b', with a small
>     modification. 'n' is a nasal 'd', so it's the 'd' symbol with the same
>     modification. 'ng' is a nasal 'g', so it's the 'g' symbol with the
>     same
>     modification.
>
You should know that VS is not unique in this, though it may be one of
the more developed and consistent such systems.  I *think* there is some
basis to the claim that hangul is a featural script like this, and
certainly Tolkien's tengwar is.  

 You can read about the featural properties of Hangul here: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul#Jamo_design >

And tengwar suffers from the same
problem that VS does: all the letters are related and formed in neat
logical ways... which means that they all look alike!!  Reading tengwar
takes a lot of practice, because all the letters look more or less
alike.  Think how much trouble dyslexics (and even non-dyslexics) have
with d,b,p,q.  Now imagine that the *entire alphabet* was like that.
(Want to mess yourself up?  Take a text and have the computer replace
every [dbpq] with a *random* character from [dbpq].  Then try to read
it).  I recall also Herman Miller has a phonetic alphabet called Lhoerr
or something like that which is similarly featural, rather like VS in
philosophy though not in actual design.

The other thing, though, is that Lojban in particular doesn't *need*
VS.  It is the non-solution to a non-problem in Lojban.  In *English* it
would fill a need: English's writing system is a mess, and it's insanely
complex to deduce how to pronounce an unfamiliar word in general.  It
also would be useful for the same purposes that we use the International
Phonetic Alphabet.  But Lojban's writing is phonemic already.  The
symbols are more or less arbitrary (though strangely familiar to huge
chunks of the literate world), but in order to learn to read with any
fluency you have to learn the symbols iconically, not as collections of
features, so you'd have to learn the VS symbols as if they were
arbitrary too.  And once you have your 25-odd symbols learned, there's
no advantage to using VS.

It's a nifty alphabet, but it doesn't seem to me to add anything to
Lojban.  Lojban may add something to IT, though, since it can discuss
features unambiguously...

I agree with Mark here. It sounds like Mr O'Byrne's objection to use of the Roman alphabet for Lojban is down to its 1) illogicality and 2) cultural bias. Understandable.

But it seems that we don't think in terms of phonemes when we read. I don't reckon that the idea that /n/ is a nasal /d/ helps a reader very much and in fact it may hinder understanding. In situations where the minimal pairs lack a connection in their meanings ( e.g. {na}/{da}, {po}/{bo}), there's not much advantage to expressing the phonemic connection in the writing system.

When I learned hangul, I did so without knowing about its featural properties. And I think if I had, it would have slowed me down as I would struggle to figure out each letter according to the system rather than memorize them individually.

That being said, hangul could be adapted for Lojban quite easily (in contravention to statements made at lojban.org); it's adapting that system for use on computers that would be hard \(>-^)/

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

--
http://laxmahispajispaji.blogspot.com/
ro re'u se galfi de'i li 06 pi'e 29 ------=_Part_18550_15754681.1151725596128--