From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 04 15:02:59 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fxsyc-0003Re-Vv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:02:39 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fxsyb-0003RS-Fn for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:02:38 -0700 Received: (qmail 53494 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Jul 2006 22:02:36 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=tjFNCS8mQff9LAqg73/2FUh1XXm96n8b3y1+7+ietNLqAWGEjsef/u2oE+l0B102x49k0JKkFz+gsvPsXNWYjEmEXzvKxDELR+xqRadKCCBRumM3Ok3wN0Tax1Tpl6myrt0z4oqVWUC3ZBTXELxWLv2vrl0WsCqIRLD337nqRoY= ; Message-ID: <20060704220236.53492.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.140.90] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:02:36 PDT Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:02:36 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Alphabet gedankenexperiment To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <44AAD3AD.6070508@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11907 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 Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Faulty analogy. The linguist is using a device -- like VS -- to describe a language. The Lojban alphabet is not used to describe Lojban but is used as a part of operating within Lojban. It is unclear (but I can make an informed guess based on how many cultures work these things) what system works best for the tribesfolk if they wanted to take up writing. The odds are good that at least alphabet three -- and very possibly syllabary two -- would fit their needs better. These are the steps in the dance, not the individual twitches that compose them. This case makes clear just what is wrong with the original argument: the virtues of RPA or VS are that they are devices to tell others about the language, not devices to be used within the language. I, as a speaker of Lojban, know how to pronounce {z} even if I don't know a thing about tongue position and voicing and what not. I may not even be curious about it -- but I do a good {z}. Having a character that encodes explicitly "voiced alveolar sibilant" does not mean anything more to me than {z} does. Somone coming from the outside may find it helpful, but thay are not yet (ex hypothesi) a Lojban speaker and so are not using it internally. --- Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > Okay, starting fresh. I've thought of a new way to put forward the > idea. (Actually, it's two ideas now. This is one of them.) Hopefully > it will more clearly illustrate the value I see in the system I'm promoting. > > To aid in an understanding of the following gedankenexperiment, you can > think of the following sounds: puh buh muh tuh duh nuh kuh guh nguh ah > eh ii oh uh. > > (It has been suggested that my argument might be better, somehow, if I > used real Lojban, somehow, so I include this following list: > .py .by .my .ty .dy .ny .ky .gy zoi .gy nguh .gy. .a. > .e. .i. .o. .u. > I don't see what value it adds, but *shrug* what do I know.) > > Note in particular that the nine consonants form a logical 3*3 grid in > sound-space. (Oops, that one almost got by me. "Logical" in the sense > of "In the realm of concept", as opposed to "Physical", "In the realm of > reality". I shall say a _regular_ 3*3 grid in sound-space.) > > Are you ready? > > Gedankenexperiment start: > > A linguist is sent to a tribe in remote Elbonia with the task: Make a > symbolic representation for the method of communication they use down > there. His boss says: "Make it a logical representation. You don't > know what I mean? Oh well, just make it a good representation, by your > own judgement.". > > After landing at Elbonia International Airport, fishing his glasses and > suitcase out of the mud, and driving 100 miles in a Jeep, he finds the > tribe. He observes and records their actions, and makes a note that > there appears to be 2025 distinct units of meaning, which he will call > 'words'. > > Scenario one: The linguist generates 2025 distinct symbols and goes > home. He tells his boss there is one symbol per word. He is happy to > see his wife, but feels unfulfilled. Depressed, he commits suicide > three days later. > > But, supposing he doesn't leave just yet. As he observes more, he > realises that these 'words' all consist of two sections, he'll call them > 'syllables', and anything that may appear in the first syllable, may > appear in the second, in the same word or a different word, and > likewise, anything that may appear in the second syllable, may appear in > the first syllable. > > Scenario two: The linguist, relieved, realises he doesn't have to come > up with 2025 distinct symbols, only 45. He tells his boss that two > symbols in order make a word. > > As he observes more closely, he realises that syllables have two very > distinct components. He calls one component of the syllable a > 'consonant', and the other component a 'vowel'. The set of syllables is > the cartesian product of 9 consonants and 5 vowels. > > Scenario three: He makes a list of 14 symbols (5 vowels and 9 > consonants), a very simple set of rules to put them together (one > consonant and one vowel per syllable, two syllables per word), and > reports all this to his boss. > > As he continues to observe, he realises that consonants have two > distinct components to them, each component taking one of three > properties. The consonants are the cartesian product of three > properties along one 'dimension' and three properties along another > 'dimension'. He draws a grid and scrawls symbols like 'x1' 'x2' 'x3' > 'y1' 'y2' 'y3' and realises that with six symbols, he can cover the > space that was occupied by nine symbols before. > > Scenario four: He makes a list of 11 symbols (5 vowels, 3 for one > property of consonants, 3 for another property of consonants), a very > simple set of rules to put them together (one symbol from each of the > three subsets per syllable, two syllables per word), and reports all > this to his boss. > > Question: In which scenario did the linguist do the best job? > > THE SURPRISE TWIST ENDING YOU NEVER SAW COMING... > > Oh, you did? Oh. Well, good for you, I guess. > > My notes on sounds were written *outside* *of* the gedankenexperiment. > On purpose, so that you'd carry that baggage with you. What the > linguist saw was people jumping and hopping, flipping fingers, and > bizzarely winking and blinking. A 'word' is a 'mini-dance' consisting > of two 'steps' ('syllables'). A 'step' consisted of the guy jumping, > holding up his right hand with a number of fingers extended, and winking > or blinking. The 'vowel' is the shape of the hand (one of five > different configurations). The 'consonant' is how he jumped and winked. > One component of consonants is whether he lands on his left leg, his > right leg, or both legs (three options), the other component of > consonants is whether he winks his left eye, his right eye, or blinks > both eyes (three values). > > In which scenario did the linguist do the best job? > > My answer is: The symbol set the linguist sends to his boss is: "One > finger" "Two fingers" "Three fingers" "Four fingers" "Five fingers", > "Left leg" "Right leg" "Both legs", "Left eye" "Right eye" "Both eyes". > He thinks it is far superior to the previous symbol set he was > considering: "One finger" "Two fingers" "Three fingers" "Four fingers" > "Five fingers", "Left leg and left eye" "Right leg and left eye" "Both > legs and left eye" "Left leg and right eye" "Right leg and right eye" > "Both legs and right eye" "Left leg and both eyes" "Right leg and both > eyes" "Both legs and both eyes". The linguist becomes world-famous, but > unfortunately, the high lifestyle of drugs and sex and always being on > the road for a celebrity linguist takes its toll, and he dies, unhappy, > 7 years later, in a motel room rented for four hours, with a lady of > easy virtue who doesn't even notice until check-out. > > INTERPRETATION: > > With a new understanding of what's going on, I hope we can all agree > that alphabet four matches each of the criteria of 'representative', > 'aesthetic', 'structured', 'meaningful', definitely 'small', just about > any desirable quality you wish to name, at least as much and in some > cases more, than alphabet three. (The lady was pissed she had to file a > report with the cops, though.) Speak now or forever hold your peace, > because I'm going to go on as if that were a given. > > The Lojban alphabet, as it currently stands, is equivalent to the > scenario-three alphabet. > > I put forth that the position of the plosive (lips, tip of tongue, back > of tongue) and the type of vocalisation (unvoiced, voiced, nasal) are > (qualitatively) as independent from each other as how an Elbonian hops > is from how he blinks, when he's dancing. > > I said it already; I generalize - a *lot*. > > I propose that the scenario-four alphabet is preferable in the long run. > (By virtue of it being at least as desirable, and in some cases more > desirable, by any reasonable criterion.) > > I propose that it is wise, if not beneficial, to at least prepare the > way for a more desirable system. > > All this before I've even really touched on how this relates to Lojban > culture, or ideals. Not that I think the above points are irrelavent. > They have value in and of themselves. > > The reason I'm here, on a Lojban forum, is this. The motivation I feel > in pursuing Mathematics is very like the motivation of that linguist > spending a couple more days in the jungle than he strictly *needs* to. > I gather that many people on this forum are like that, engrossed in the > development and refinement of Lojban. I may be wrong: my wife tells me > naivete is another of my weaknesses, and I have good reasons to believe > she's right. I guess it's closely related to idealism. Anyway. The > feelings I get from diving into Lojban, and RPA-type concepts, are the > same feelings too. It is plain as day to me that they are > manifestations of the same ideal (perhaps best called reductionism), and > thus belong together. (Insert shouts of "Delusional!" here, as > appropriate.) > > If Lojban lives long enough, I think it's inevitable that it will end up > with an RPA-type alphabet. If it takes generations, so be it. But I > would enjoy seeing it. I also think an RPA would make the language a > more cohesive whole, in implementing the reductionist philosophy already > so pervasive in Lojban, into yet one more level of the language. And, > as I said earlier, I think it's wise to at least prepare a way for an > inevitable improvement. > > Implementation details: On the practical side, Matt Arnold's idea of > having an RPA as an additional feature, not to take the place of the > Latin alphabet for those who want to learn it that way, but there for > people like me who see more in the language than others, is (so far) the > only feasible solution I've seen that I imagine could work in both the > short-term and the long-term. That's what gets my vote. (Until I see a > better idea.) > > 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. > > 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.