From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 04 08:57:25 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxnGr-0006AX-GR for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:57:05 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxnGl-0006A9-3K for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:57:05 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d42so1901600pyd for ; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=T62pP9TU5rrPl/JzvTQ7G8YEqBZRJgqDHEwgx24hEUVmAo7s0B4JkXuOB2wyVhhmU+Xu9eolY+QWAhBb4HlbD7saZC4IC4oyeuQBPBRbaPCDaP9drQuku30ov3PToLJmxDPbPQUQRLVgPPmEzuOzmtce4pvdIN6bsMd/Sth2K88= Received: by 10.35.60.16 with SMTP id n16mr2284553pyk; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [70.224.74.45]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 60sm499463pyg.2006.07.04.08.56.51; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44AA8F0B.4090505@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:53:47 -0400 From: Hugh O'Byrne User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [hobyrne@gmail.com: Alphabet] References: <20060702215144.96228.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060702215144.96228.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 11901 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: hobyrne@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Taking up where I left off: John E Clifford wrote: >>> 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. > > Actually figuring out how to pronounce an English word is a snap compared to figuring out how to > spell it (we don’t have pronunciation bees, after all). Point: granted (though I don't see how it's relavent, it's still fun to talk about). Right. Part of that is that English is just such a random conglomeration of other languages. Spelling can give a clue as to the origin of the word: using the example you've described, 'dys' indicates the word is from Greek, which subtly influences how you think about letter-sound mapping of the rest of the word, and 'dis' indicates the word is from Latin, which gives different cues. But hearing them, without being told "This word comes from such-and-such language", makes spelling more difficult, because you don't have any clue which sound-letter mapping is more appropriate. Even if you *were* told the base language, it would be difficult for most people (myself included). I imagine that the letter-sound maps are so deeply buried in the subconscious (e.g. I didn't know enough to associate 'dys' with Greek, and I have no idea what else in my head is associated with Greek and I don't even know it), and so used to being used in the symbol-to-sound direction, that without training in those languages, trying to consciously use that part of the brain backwards would be very difficult. > But English is spoken in an enormous > number of dialects and it is generally thought that it is better that all speakers spell their > words more or less the same way than that each spells ‘em like they says ‘em, thus spreading > the impaired intelligibility around in another medium (cf. the problem with similar letters for > similar sounds). English could use some work, to be sure, but it is not nearly as bad as > reformers like to make out – and the details are relatively unimportant anyhow, given that we > don’t read letter by letter. Point: granted. I refine my argument. Dialects drift over time. But there is a defined baseline of phonemics for Lojban. While no region or accent has the claim to be a more 'definitive' or 'central' accent for the English language (except for the Royal Family speaking the King's English, perhaps, but even that's just a social rank not universally recognised as being the authority on the subject), that is not the case for Lojban. Lojban *has* a Grand Supreme Primary Definition. So even if dialects drift, and the borders on the phonemic map wander in different ways in different places, the symbolism of the alphabet will still represent the baseline. It would serve the role of Japan's common dialect. There are many regions in Japan with different dialects, but everyone learns the common one as well as the local one; when with friends, or in the neighbourhood, everyone uses the local dialect, when communicating with someone in a different region (one of the things Lojban is supposed to facilitate), everyone uses common Japanese. > But VS symbols are arbitrary at a very basic level – the way they represent features. Given the > representation rules, they become systematic. The Latin alphabet leaves out this lower level and > represents sounds arbitrarily directly. It is thus the simpler system (26 arbitrary connections > versus several dozen arbitrary connections and then calculating what the combination means). Point: agreed (I changed my mind). Argument about simpler vs. better applies here. Also, the size of VS, I now agree, is way too big for Lojban, related to the issue of a phonemic alphabet vs. a phonetic one. A *phonemic* symbol set which represents features of sounds (i.e. a phonemic parallel to the phonetic VS), will thus be 'simpler' (in the sense you follow that word with: fewer arbitrary axioms at the initial creation of the symbol set). Two parts of the symbol, with three attributes each, six elements in all, will cover the 9 sounds of 'p' 'b' 'm' 't' 'd' 'n' 'k' 'g' 'ng'. Not much of an improvement, from 9 symbols down to 6, but considering just number of features, representative phonemic alphabet wins. I'm going to use RPA as an abbreviation for this 'representative phonemic alphabet'. Substitute RPA for VS in all my previous posts... >>Stating that familiarity with the symbols is an advantage is dubious to >>me. More in another post. > > Not from the Lojban philosophy. Point: clarification. I wasn't so much talking about familiarity's inherent value in the sense of not having to learn something new. That is a positive advantage. I was talking about familiarity's sense of already having learned something that has to be unlearned. As I wrote on: >> In summary: I am *so* familiar with the 'o' >>symbol, I was pronouncing the beginning of the word 'Lojban' like >>'logic'... > >> well, depending upon what ‘o’ you use, it might be acceptable, since Lojban vowels cover > fairly broad areas (I suspect you use the one like Lojban ‘a’ and that would not work). Point: agreed. Right. I'm pretty sure the way I was saying it, before I listened to a podcast, was unacceptable by the rules of the language. I was embarrassed. This is the associated baggage with 'familiarity' that IMHO makes the advantage 'dubious'. >>It doesn't add to the language of Lojban, no (at least, not >>immediately). It adds to the culture. It embodies (what I see as) the >>ideal of Lojban. It expresses the philosophy. It supports Lojban. > > I don’t see what relevant it adds to Lojban culture. Point: clarification. Lojban is about new, clean, structured communication and its representation (what is communication but representation?). The focus of many people will be in the higher realm of intellectual expression. But the focus *need* *not* be so narrow. It will harmoniously extend to new, clean, structured representation of lower aspects of communication too. That is how it would add to Lojban culture. Benefits to the deaf, and some of the other points I make, are just happy side-effects. But they still have real value, even if not to you personally, which is why I mention them. But I grant you they are not primary motives. > Lojban is not interested in teaching the > deaf (or anyone else) to speak plainly and that is the sole real use of VS. Point: confusion. "Lojban is not interested in teaching people to speak plainly." Hm. I just cannot wrap my head around that sentence. Wow. I'm afraid *this* is a *real* communications breakdown. >>>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. > > Not obviously. It is not clear in what sense the Latin alphabet is illogical (and some other > logical) Point: clarification. As you point out a bit later, I am being a bit fast and loose with the word 'logical'. What I was trying to express here was that the Latin alphabet has no *depth* of *structure*. It is a set of phonemic symbols, but those symbols reveal nothing about the phonemes. It is possible to generate a set of symbols which *does* represent something about the phonemes, with an RPA. Depth of regular structure is (in my mind, anyway) very closely associated with logic. I hope it is now clear what I meant. > and the Latin alphabet is the de facto universal alphabet, cutting across most cultural > lines – at least for government work, but also for advertising and, of course, computer use. Point: granted. I said in my intro, that I place very little value on cultural inertia. I take a long view. But I recognise that there is no long view if the project dies in the early stages, so I do concern myself with short-term issues too. Just not as much. I may write more on this later. >>Maybe you don't think in terms of phonemes when you read the Latin >>alphabet. You don't think as much in terms of predicates when you read >>English, do you? Isn't one of the important goals of Lojban to open the >>mind to new ways of thinking? Logical, structured representations? > > Huh? The structure is just another, more complex, arbitrary association. And, of course, > “logical” here is just a positive word without content (as yet, anyhow). Point: clarification. Yes, there's that word 'logical' again. If I had a chance to rewrite the last bit, I would use "Representations that convey more meaning in deeper structures". >>>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. >> >>Granted, I could imagine that the learning process might be slower. >>... > > How is this relevant to anything in Lojban? Point: Answer. Lojban is an exercise in learning ways to express yourself, in neat, structural, clear, regular ways. VS has the same goal. Meta-point. The paragraph above, which I was responding to, is not relavent to anything in Lojban. It was relavent to Hangul and VS and its ilk, which is why my reply was relavent only to VS and its ilk, and not to Lojban in particular. I'm not the one who took this part of the conversation off the track, you are. >>Alphabets such as VS and Lhoerr teach a different way (a more >>structured, logical way) > > Brap! Point: confusion. I don't know what "Brap!" means (except a minor angel, skilled at locating precious metals; I don't think this was the meaning you intended, though). I was hoping that this forum, in particular, would be one in which communication would be clearer. I'm guessing you're getting tired of me using the word 'logical' to represent anything I value positively, which I understand. I'll try and use more specific words, like 'structured', maybe 'layered', 'representative'. Anyway, I'll try and swerve from the word "logic" in future, when I see it dead ahead in the thought-to-typing buffer in my mind. >>to think about how we speak, and represent >>speech. How can anyone think they're *not* appropriate for Lojban?! >>It's at a lower level, closer to the physical interface than the >>information-bearing higher-level protocols, but it's *entirely* the >>spirit of Lojban. > > It’s easy to think they are not appropriate to Lojban since they violate a basic design > principle. It thus is entirely the opposite of the spirit of Lojban. A course in Lojban history > seems called for. Point: somewhat conceded. Lojban has conflicting requirements. It is to be easy to integrate into the current culture, and it is to remain relavent (avoid obsolescence) for long into the future. (I guess that second one is an implicit one, and it's possible I have the wrong end of the stick here. Let me know if I do.) I am valuing the second point higher. Many value the first point higher. >>Also, Lojban has a mechanism for expressing words in foreign languages. >> But because of the limited number of phonemes, and the fact that the >>phonemes of Lojban do not match phonemes of other languages exactly, >>they can't be properly expressed in the Lojban alphabet. VS/Lhoerr >>needn't be used in its entirety to write basic Lojban, just pick the >>symbols of the existing phonemes. But it has the *capability* of >>expressing foreign words with foreign sounds without going outside of >>the system. > > Lojban expresses foreign words as much as possible in Lojbanic phonology; it does not need – nor > want – a more accurate representation. Point: opinion. I disagree. Mark E. Shoulson disagrees. Lojban has specific mechanisms for expressing foreign words. It is lacking, because Lojbanic phonemes are not the same as all foreign languages. Lojban 'wants' (perhaps... some would say 'needs') to have at least the *capacity* to be as precise as possible in everything it expresses (though not necessitating precision all the time). So I disagree. If you can back your statement, that Lojban does *not* want to be accurate, I'd be interested to hear. >>Summary: >> >>Advantages of Latin alphabet: >>* Fewer people will have to learn the symbol set (familiarity with the >>symbols, which I consider a disadvantage). > > But Lojban calls an advantage. Point: opinion *You* call an advantage. There is extra baggage associated with 'familiarity', as I say in my next point: >>Disadvantages of Latin alphabet: >>* Deeply ingrained associations many people in the world already have >>with the symbols, inconsistent both globally and individually >>(familiarity, which some consider an advantage). > > But the differences are relatively small and easily compensated for: see how quickly an English > speaker learns Pinyin. Point: uncontested. It is a disadvantage. >>* If you are unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet, there is no way to >>learn it except by memorizing all the arbitrary symbol-sound associations. > > Which are fewer and simpler than the articulatory rules of VS etc. Point: agree (changed my mind) Yes, I now recognise that phonemic is suited for this job, and phonetic is not. Layers of symbolism within the phonemic alphabet would have fewer still and simpler still rules than Latin. >>* Less expressive for foreign sounds. > > Not a problem, since we are not learning those foreign sounds. (dismissive) Point: scope *You* are not learning foreign sounds. Lojban has a place for foreign sounds, ZOI and la'o. It is currently not as expressive as it should be; by that, I mean that words which are not homonyms in their own language can effectively become so when limited to the current system. Perhaps you don't use the ZOI/la'o feature of the language, I'm not saying my idea is for you, I'm saying my idea is for Lojban. >>Advantages of VS/Lhoerr: >>* It is structured, logical, and consistent; entirely in tune with the >>philosophy of Lojban. > > I don’t see any part of Lojban’s “philosophy” that belnds well with this system, which is > arbitrary and illogical (if xuis can use empty words, I can use theor equally empty opposites). Point: missed. I have backed up my words. 'Depth of representation' or 'reductionist' are perhaps the terms I should have used more than 'logical'. I maintain that the three are very closely linked, though I admit maybe I should have used the other terms more often instead of using the one, 'logical', so much. If the philosophy of regularity, conveying meaning clearly (on many levels), is one you cannot see in Lojban, then we have ideological differences. I shall be so bold and assertive enough to state I'm not the only one. As to arbitrariness, in the end, it is really just about unavoidable. Pushing it down to its most fundamental elements is 'logical', yes, I'll use the word. By that, I mean it only makes common sense. Common within the circles with which I associate myself, anyway. The creators of Lojban could have chosen an arbitrary symbol for each word in the language. They did not. Why? Because they knew that although arbitrariness would come in somewhere, they didn't want it at such a high conceptual level as words. They decided to push the lowest unit of representation not to words but to the components of words: phonemes. This is a good decision. I hope you agree. My extension of that train of thought is that phonemic representation is still a higher-level representation than is possible. Representation of the shape and use of the mouth and vocal cords is a yet lower expression of how we speak. If nothing else, the inertia of the decision to use phonemic symbols instead of word symbols is a pointer that this is the way to go. So this point stands. >>* If you are unfamiliar with the alphabet, you can choose to learn all >>the associations straight off the block just like Latin, *or* you can >>choose to learn the fundamentals (granted, arbitrary, but at least >>expressing something more fundamental about the sound, so there are >>fewer components for more expressiveness) and work from first principles. > > I.e, you can learn it just as easily as the Latin – which you already know – or you can learn > a much more complex set of associations to do the work of the Latin alphabet – which you already > know. Point: clarification. I prefaced my point with "If you are unfamiliar with the alphabet". This did not express what I meant it to. Here, and elsewhere too I think, I should have written instead "If you are unfamiliar with both alphabets, and had to learn one or the other". Point: uncontested. With my new qualifier, you do not invalidate my point. Drop all the "which you already know" bits, and what's left is, yes, you have a choice. Choice is good. Besides that, backing away from a phonetic alphabet to a phonemic one (which is my new position), you're now down to learning fewer associations. That makes the alternative in the choice more appealing. >>* It teaches some physical aspects of speech. This could be an >>advantage to some people who have difficulty elocuting. > > And this is relevant to Lojban how? Point: uncontested. I was not making points about Lojban. I was making points about advantages of VS/Lhoerr. I stated that clearly. >>* More expressive for foreign sounds. (But the 'core' symbol set used >>in regular day-to-day Lojban still need not be ridiculously large.) > > Relevance? Point: uncontested, already addressed. I was not making points about Lojban, and Lojban *is* intended to represent foreign sounds when necessary. >>* Written-spoken isomorphism (which some consider a disadvantage). > > More just an irrelevancy. Point: uncontested. I was not making points about Lojban. >>* It's fun to learn something new. Isn't that why we're learning Lojban >>in the first place? > > Well, no –at least for some of us. Point: conceded. >>Disadvantages of VS/Lhoerr: >>* More people will have to learn the symbol set. (Not a major point, >>IMHO. People all around the world are about equally *capable* of >>learning VS/Lhoerr. This seems to be to be a more important long-term >>goal.) > > But the added work for no gain is a negative factor: we know the Latin alphabet or, if not, it is > easier to learn than VS. Point: clarification. This is the other place I should have said something like "If you are unfamiliar with both alphabets, and had to learn one or the other" Point: mostly already addressed. *We*, you and I, know the Latin alphabet. Lojban is bigger than us. "easier to learn than VS": but always at least as difficult as, and (I imagine) most of the time more difficult than, learning a representative phonemic alphabet. I'm going to start using RPA in my posts, for 'representative phonemic alphabet', rather than VS. "for no gain" does not apply. VS has advantages. A representative phonemic alphabet has advantages. Maybe not for you personally, but Lojban is bigger than you. >>* Written-spoken isomorphism (which I consider an advantage, a direct >>extension of the 'phonemic representation' ideal, which is already >>agreed to be an advantage). > > Relevance? Point: uncontested. >>* Meaning, encoded in slight geometrical features on symbols, can be >>difficult for people not sensitive to such geometries to detect and >>process correctly. This one, I may not be able to wangle my way out of. >> I shall have to ponder... >> >>My bias is obvious. Anyone care to add to this table? >> >>mi'e .xius. *phew* > --- Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > > >>John E Clifford wrote: >> >>>Nah! The wikipedia contains a contemporary review which still applies nearly 150 years later. >>>The analysis is faulty (though Bell Jr corrected some of it).The so-called representationalism >>is >>>largely arbitrary -- better than the Just-So stories but nothing to help a trained >>articulatory >>>phonologist. >> >>Granted, the representationalism in the symbols *is* fairly arbitrary at >>its lowest level, as are the modifiers to those symbols. But the >>compound symbols (which are most of the letters) are consistent, logical >>applications of those modifiers to the base symbols. As such, it is >>clearly superior to the Latin alphabet in that respect. And consistency >>and logic are respects that are valued highly in Lojbanistan, as I >>understand. > > > As usual, “logical” here adds nothing to the tale – at least so far. The rules are > consistently applied – for the most part, but the analyses are in several cases faulty. Point: granted. VS is not ideal. But it points in a direction worth going in. I'll use 'RPA' to represent that direction, from now on. > And > learning the rules and calculating out the effects of their applications is a much more complex > task than just applying the correlations given directly by the Latin forms. Point: missed, irrelavent. Learning the rules of pronounciations of letters in English and the effects of their applications on words is a much more complex task than just recognising a word and saying it. That doesn't invalidate the idea that a more regular phonemic representation is better than, say, English spelling. I'm proposing an exact parallel. (More below.) > To be sure, this > complexity is largely irrelevant (except that it keeps being offered as an advantage), since we > will use the symbols much the way we use the Latin ones, without recalculating each time. You're putting words in my mouth. As I've said before, I won't let you misrepresent me. The regularity, and depth of representation, (and now, fewer components of RPA than the Latin alphabet,) are what I offer as advantages. As has been pointed out in another thread, even the letters aren't the fundamental units of recognition for a fluent person reading a text. Words are the units. So, if words are the units, why not have symbols for each word? There too many of them to do regularly, and the designers of the language decided that fewer representations of a more basic property of the word (phonemes), put together in a structured way would be better. These are few enough that it's "no big deal" that they themselves are not regular. But I propose that fewer representations of a more basic property of phonemes (symbols for the shape of the mouth, etc.), put together in a structured way would be better. The relationship of IPA components to phonemes is the same as the relationship of phonemes to words. Words don't *need* to be broken to phonemes, but it's a 'good thing', mostly because there are fewer. Phonemes don't *need* to be broken to individual properties of parts of the mouth, but there are fewer, they can be (somewhat) regularly categorized: is this not a 'good thing' in the same way? > But in > that case, why change from the ones we know to another we know not Point: scope I see Lojban as being bigger than you or I. What you or I know or don't know is a small consideration in the reductionist philosophy that has extended from long before we were born to long after we're dead. > (and which are even harder to > deal with than the familiar ones). Point: opinion I disagree. Children learn the alphabet, and phonemes, before they learn words. Learning these things is hard, but it makes the larger structures of words easier. Eventually, the letters get lost in the words, words are seen as a whole, but the letters are still there, and still valuable. Learning the fundamentals of how the mouth moves, apart from being a valuable knowledge and skill in and of itself, I opine is easier (and more fundamental) than learning letters. And after these skills are mastered, it makes the larger structure of phonemes easier in just the same way as mastering phonemes makes words easier. The components will get lost in the letters, letters will be seen as a whole, but the components are still there, and still valuable. >>And VS is *considerably* better than the Just-So stories alphabet. >>There's hardly a comparison. In the story, there are very few modifiers >>to existing symbols, mostly new made-up symbols even where there were >>parallels to previous sounds to guide in consistent creation of new >>symbols. And what modifiers there are, aren't even applied in >>consistent ways. VS is *very* different from that. > > Not sure what story you are thinking of. The one I remember derives the Latin alphabet from > various – arbitrarily uisolated – features of articulation: very much like VS then. There are > no modifications of existing symbols, merely an etiological myth about those symbols. Point: missed. I just skimmed the "Just So Stories" to find the one you were referring to. "How the alphabet was made", right? http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/alpha.htm This story starts with the English phonemes, and assigns symbols to each sound based on the fictional culture the characters live in and the fictional language they speak. This is two degrees removed from VS. First of all, as to culture and language. Not only are they fictional, they are anything but culture-neutral. Not everyone in the world has seen and heard a snake. Many people use a machine to dry their clothes after washing them. I haven't seen carp-fish, or a pike, I've never hunted with a spear, I don't live in a family of three whose names all begin with 't', and I've never seen the Wagai river. I never knew that "shi" meant "spear", and that "shi-las" meant "broken spear" (I suspect it never really did). As icons, these are not as suitable for a world-language as geometrical shapes. Every culture has spirals, circles, zig-zags, rays, horizontal and vertical and diagonal lines, and the like, in even their ancient carvings on rocks. Second, as to the level of representation. In JSS, the fundamental unit being represented was a phoneme. In VS, the fundamental units being represented are different aspects of the configuration of the mouth that make up phonemes. The JSS story is about sounds, VS is about subcomponents used in generating sounds. VS starts with elementary components of phonemes, not phonemes themselves. The phoneme-symbols are *compound* symbols, just the way "word" can be seen as a single compound symbol, consisting of the symbols "w" "o" "r" "d". (Yes, a symbol can consist of spatially disconnected line segments: small 'i' is considered a whole symbol, even including the dot.) Phonemes are generated by putting symbols together in an orderly way, with layers of meaning behind it that any human being can relate to, regardless of what animals live in their environment, regardless of how they do their laundry. If I give you a 3*3 grid of sounds: puh buh muh tuh duh nuh kuh guh ??? and ask you what sound goes at ???, you can figure it out. It has the nasal quality of 'muh' and 'nuh', and it has the position-of-tongue quality of 'kuh' and 'guh'. You'll come up with 'nguh'. If I give you 3*3 grid of shaped line segments in a table: 
+-+-+-+
|p|b|m|
+-+-+-+
|t|d|n|
+-+-+-+
|k|g|?|
+-+-+-+
and ask you: What symbol goes where the question mark is? There is no answer to this in the symbolic space. If I gave you a corresponding table with VS symbols instead of Latin letters, the gap in the table could be correctly drawn by matching corresponding features of geometry and shape. The position of the tongue is represented by the orientation of the symbol, the nasal quality by the presence of a squiggle. The orientation, and presence or absence of squiggles, are the 'modifications' to the VS symbols I was talking about. Modifying the position of the tongue from the front of the mouth to the back (e.g. changing a 't' sound to a 'k' sound) is isomorphic to modifying the orientation of the symbol by 90 degrees clockwise (the same modification going from 't' to 'k' as from 'd' to 'g' and going from 'n' to 'ng'). This is a feature the JSS story lacks. The 't':'k' relationship is as the 'd':'g' relationship, there is no inkling of this in JSS, there is clear representation of it in VS. Clarification: Yes, I'm no longer pushing VS, but RPA. The fundamental points still apply. RPA can represent more fundamental parts of phonemes, just as phonemes represent fundamental parts of words. >>"... nothing to help a trained articulatory phonologist". Is that the >>target audience of Lojban? Or, putting that idea on its head, do you >>think a trained articulatory phonologist has nothing to contribute to >>improving the design of an artificial spoken language? I, obviously, >>think that they could contribute. I think we should take advantage of >>the insights of such people. > > I think that a trained phonologist could offer a lot of improvements for artifical languages in > general and Lojban in particular. That has nothing to do with VS, however (it is about best use > of pronunciation space and word space). Point: uncontested. A trained phonologist came up with VS as a way to offer his expertise and insight for the use of the world at large. I think he succeeded. Visual symbolic representation of pronunciation space and word space is a requirement of Lojban (so it is more than a spoken language, it is a written language too). Lojban is designed to be 'good'. As such, best use of pronunciation space and word space is relavent. Or are you proposing that, all other things being equal, less-than-best-use is what you'd *prefer* for Lojban? > My point was just that the symbols in VS are in no sense > “natural” symbols for the articulatory mechanism, so that one could read off the articulation > from the symbols without considerable training in the rules of the representation system. Point: uncontested. Perhaps no more natural. But definitely no more unnatural. And definitely fewer (with IPA instead of VS), and definitely representative of more fundamental actions of speaking words. >>In this respect, Lojban will not educate a linguist, but an educated >>linguist can help in the formulation of Lojban. >> >> >>>And (not mentioned) the fact that similar sounds are represented by similar >>>characters merely carries over into writing the common confusions in speech (not a desirable >>>written-spoken isomorphism). >> >>I did mention it in my original post, or at least I tried to, with my >>'b' 'd' 'g' example. >> >>I'm not sure I agree. I'd be interested to hear more about how you come >>to this conclusion. Written-spoken isomorphism is *very* desirable. >>It's the very reason Lojban has a phonemic alphabet. It is desirable to >>as much and as precise a degree as possible. > > My point is just that, if we confuse two related sounds in the speech stream because they are > similar, it is not an advantage to have them also easily confused in the letter stream by making > them similar again. One use of writing is exactly to overcome speech confusions. Point: ... I'm confused. That would be better accomplished by having a one-word-to-one-symbol mapping. Maybe a one-sentence-to-one-symbol mapping. But Lojban goes in the other direction: it represents shorter, more fundamental aspects of utterances, of sentences, of words, of phonemes. The direction Lojban takes is exactly opposite to the direction you're proposing. >>Confusions occur both in speech and text. Would it be better for these >>confusions to be unrelated, independent? Put it this way: If you see a >>word that is obviously misspelled, what do you do? You vocalize it in >>your mind, think ov words that sound the same, and see if they fit into >>the sentence properly. You go from the visual to the auditory world. >>Phonemic spelling makes that transition easier. But VS makes the >>transition entirely unnecessary: a misspelling of that nature in VS can >>be analyzed in that fashion entirely in the visual world. Assuming >>you're not deaf, maybe not a big deal to you, 'v' and 'f' being very >>different symbols are still closely related in your mind, but perhaps to >>a deaf person, having the symbols for 'v' and 'f' be similar as the >>sounds are similar might make the job a bit easier. > > I am not sure your description of what happens is accurate, but even supposing it is, it does not > answer to the problem I was referring to. It does raise another though (not applicable to Lojban, > which has no homonyms): we convert all the homophones into homoglyphs so little is gained in the > way of intelligibility (though the old homoglyphs will by and large disappear – sometimes into > new ones, like the “read”s. Point: scope. In the current system, and in RPA, homophones are all represented as homoglyphs. Is that *enough*? In a one-symbol-to-one word mapping, homophones are all represented as homoglyphs. That is *not* enough. Symbols are chosen to represent smaller features of words (phonemes). What was the motivation to choose phoneme-level symbol mapping rather than word-level symbol mapping? Why does it not apply to property-of-phoneme-level symbol mapping better than phoneme-level symbol mapping? Lojban has a requirement for a word-symbol mapping. I see the scope of that as being larger than you see it. > My problemwas, remember, that the easily confused speech forms are > now represented by easily confused written forms, importing into the writing a kind of confusion > that was less present before (p, b, d, q and g are less easily confused in speech than in writing, > though are somewhat). 'b' and 'p' are similar sounding and similar looking. In that respect, this pair already embodies the RPA. So I shall try to make my point with these existing symbols and their existing associations. Someone transcribing the goings-on at a party mishears "beer" and writes "peer". A person who knows no English, is deaf and mute, and has a small English dictionary (strangely lacking a phonetic guide), reads "I drank my peer". After studying the dictionary, he becomes very confused. One of the words must be wrong, he comes to realise; but which one? He could read the whole English dictionary, and educate himself in the language until it becomes obvious what the intended meaning was. But that's terribly tedious; he wants to take a short-cut. He wants it to be easy. He decides to look up words 'like' the ones written until he comes across a combination that makes sense. How is he to know one word is 'like' another? In this case, the fact that 'b' looks like 'p' *and* 'b' sounds like 'p' gives him a very important clue. He looks up "beer" and aha!, it all makes sense now. The similarity of sub-phoneme components of the spoken 'b' and 'p' being reflected in the similarity of the geometric shapes of the symbols 'b' and 'p' works in this guy's favour. >>In fact, changing 'of' to 'ov' brings up so many more issues than just >>that, so it's probably not as good an example as I'd like it to be. But >>it demonstrates a transition from the visual to the auditory that can be >>done away with using VS. > > Only in the sense that “ov” in the new system would not be a misspelling (for some people); > the confusion with “’ ve” now appears in writing as well as speech. Point: lost. I'm lost here. Since I was already making the point that 'ov' was going beyond the realm of the topic at hand, I'll just drop it. >>Further, when reading a handwritten page, the mind automatically fills >>in meaning where there are smudges, or slightly askew lines, stuff like >>that. That very same mechanism will work in favour of making slight >>transcription errors more easily understandable. > > As indeed they now do (witness reading my typing). The whole issue of handwriting is an > interesting one: what would a running script that kept all the relevant features of VS look like? > Is it feasible at all? It is bound to be slower than our present hand in any case. Again, > however, it worls by Gestalt – why reading an unfamiliar hand is so hard at first, until you get > the correspondences down (going back to learning to read in effect). Point: ?? Um, your typing isn't smudged. "it worls by Gestalt", I take as being an (intentional?) typo of "it works by Gestalt", embodying the other type of 'writo'. So I'm going to run with that. My poor deaf-mute sees your sentence. Again he gets confused, "worls" is not in the dictionary. You and I know, this is a fundamentally different *type* of error than mishearing and transcribing auditory mistakes. But my poor suffering subject is deaf-mute, and knows nothing of this. So, what does he do? He searches his dictionary for words which look visually similar to what he sees, "worls". He sees that with just the addition of two small line segments, the word may potentially be "works". He puts it all together, and is overjoyed. What did he do different this time? Nothing. A misheard transcription is an error as easily fixed, by the same means, as a slipped pen. This IMHO is a good feature of error-tolerance. Take, for example, how you or I would handle dealing with either case. I personally don't believe in the literal 'grandmother neuron', but I do believe it is a phenomenon, and I'm going to use it as a guide to illustrate my thought-process. We see "peer" out of place, but because I'm subvocalising as I read (I don't know if you do too), the 'beer' neuron fires because it's in close proximity to the 'peer' neuron (by reason of we speak and hear words frequently, and on some levels neurons represent lower-level sound-patterns such as phonemes and phoneme components as well as word-patterns), and it much better fits the context. We see "worls" out of place, and it takes a little longer, but the "works" neuron fires because it's in somewhat close proximity to the 'worls' neuron (by reason of we look at symbols frequently, and on some levels neurons represent line segments and geometrical components of letters as well as letters themselves), and it much better fits the context. You see what happened there? I (I'm assuming you, too, but I don't want to overstep my allowed assumption-space) used two *different* avenues to resolve the two different cases. My deaf-mute used *one* avenue, and it worked for both, exactly *because* of the component-of-phoneme to component-of-symbol isomorphism. >what would a running script that kept all the relevant features of VS look like? > Is it feasible at all? Point: agreed. These questions have value. Do you have answers to these questions? Do you think it's better not to ask these questions? Don't you think it's an avenue of thought that at least deserves a look down? > It is bound to be slower than our present hand in any case. Point: contested. I'd like to see you back this statement. >>There are some fun jokes that involve expressing visual puns verbally, >>or more commonly, verbal puns visually. They're so much fun because >>they're delayed-reaction jokes, it takes a second (or a day) to 'get' >>it. VS will pretty much kill those kinds of jokes. What is a verbal >>pun, is a visual pun (or is more likely to be perceived as bad >>transcription). I enjoy those jokes. But they are, fundamentally, >>misunderstandings and misrepresentations. They don't belong in Lojban. > > And are virtually impossible in Lojban already, as those who have tried them have found. There > are a few metAathesis jokes but that is about all. Point: agreed. >>As to *need*: The Latin alphabet *is* all you need to represent Lojban, >>it's true. And it has the dubious advantage of being familiar to many >>people in the world (more on that later). But then, English is all you >>*need* for anything you'd want to say in Lojban, and it is also familiar >>to many people in the world. Lojban is not about stopping at mere need, >>otherwise it wouldn't exist. No, Lojban doesn't *need* VS. The world >>doesn't need Lojban. But the world *has* Lojban, because people were >>(and still are) enamoured with ideas such as creating a useful, >>culture-neutral communication system. > > It is not clear that anyone really wants this Point: incorrect. I really want it. There's that dismissiveness again. You *know* that it *is* clear that I want it. I am (in potentia) 'anyone'. > nor that it is a reason why someone learns Lojban Point: irrelavent. The wide spacing of digits in sound-space I have cited as a favourable feature of Lojban. I severely doubt that this is a reason why *anyone* wants to learn Lojban. The IPA, I propose, would be a favourable feature of Lojban. I claim no more than that. I never suggested it would become a *reason* for someone to learn Lojban. > (and it is even less clear that Lojban is culturally neutral in any relevant sense). *sigh* Google: Lojban "culturally neutral" and tell me what you see. That's three misses in one sentence. Point: I'm about to get emotional again. What *is* this? Is this some kind of sparring match? I get the increasing notion you're *actively* missing the points I'm trying to make, you are *sabotaging* the formation of a common understanding. (I'm giving you credit for being intelligent. It's either that, or the notion that you're ignorant, and wilfully so, so I'm being charitable in my evaluation.) While sparring is fun occasionally, this is just getting tedious. Is this some kind of hazing ritual, to see if I have the determination and skill to stick at my guns in the face of adversity, to prove I'm 'worthy' to join your cabal? To hell with that. I am offering an idea. I want you to understand the idea, because I enjoy it and I think you might enjoy it too if you let yourself, but if you're determined not to accept this gift I offer, that's your problem. I'll offer it, but I won't break my back over it. Combat zone as it may be, there are still rules of engagement. mi'e .xius. -- 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.