From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Apr 06 13:27:03 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JibSA-0001kJ-US for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:27:02 -0700 Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.183]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JibS2-0001k3-Cu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:27:02 -0700 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id z25so821884ele.0 for ; Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:26:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=IBd+4RJDI4mTBn5dRQi36hK6vLivqhsofheqnj3DIpU=; b=kFFPJEIsy02pbY0nTrNWUMxQ4HUq9tC23a7Owj6Y3iNWJuM4r8JHe6FlaGvvT8NPiwhPTHN5iSMcQs7jR20X/afbXf5yskN+B6voGViE6kufhpBqx7uJAUbe4cwNoN8/8YvJECoGHFMZhigy4qpu9LhT7zHp8dVuUfYvOnfvSQU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=QH+NQVyZ/c7wNQTCio16kO+2yjR2k/0p0XhInH1/ifrgi9BNQ1pkLSssRwUbKHNOVTNyOL/dX7AiIjLUjBNIMpN4dbd/CXP+NLeWzKNhC9vr/BnhqeDK/dTyis6AU0HmXekbGakpL5PqYMJ4i0Nut3d0mHioHbONfgJxDxbd/QI= Received: by 10.141.197.8 with SMTP id z8mr1190750rvp.157.1207513609593; Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.136.10 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 13:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <702226df0804061326t273ebb7dl79144815e02f070c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:26:49 -0500 From: "Jon \"Top Hat\" Jones" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Original orthography draft now online for critique In-Reply-To: <531178.82031.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7608_9793078.1207513609583" References: <531178.82031.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14314 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: eyeonus@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_7608_9793078.1207513609583 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I don't like the 's' at all, it's too easy to miss that it's even there. Maybe give it kind of a hump, like _|\_ only not as pronounced? I don't like p/b, but only because I don't like the second loop of p/b: I feel that the character as it is but without the top loop would be better. I'd like a less convoluted f/v, as well, but it's no big deal to me. I like the idea of pre/post stops, but there's the difficulty of things like {la .djan.djonz.}: would the internal '.' be pre- or post-? Or both combined? Or a different character entirely? That said, I think it's nice, and I'd much like to see the final result. On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:36 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > Alas, I was doing this from memory; my set of Lojban scripts has > disappeared into some archive which in turn has gone onto one of the forty > or so disks lying around. I can in fact find only one or two other actual > scripts and a discussion about how to best do things given that we want an > analytic script (i.e., one that indicates the significant phonological > features of each phoneme in the structure of the character). Since I more > or less automatically give thoroughly analytic scripts Cs or below > (characters automatically blur into clusters that are going to be misread), > looking at these has no point. As I recall (and this is from more than a > decade ago, I am pretty sure -- maybe a whole wifetime ago), the A scripts > gave each character a distinctive outline -- typically two (redundancy) > distinctive marks -- and had a complexity roughly matched to the > frequency of occurrence (inversely rather). The big problems then were > that most of the > characters were rather complex and that (more or less consequently) > cursive forms did not come naturally. I remember someone saying that they > could not code many of the characters into the printers of the time (24 pin > dot matrix?). None would have been an A+ then, but maybe some of this gives > some direction (but note that I personally, having gotten used to Latin > alphabet skimming, don't see the point of changing anyhow). > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: LakMeer Kravid > To: lojban-list@lojban.org > Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 9:54:28 AM > Subject: [lojban] Re: Original orthography draft now online for critique > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:40 AM, John E Clifford > wrote: > > I'd say somewhere a bit above the middle of the range of proposals (a B > of some sort -- roughly on a par with the Latin alphabet). Having to go > back to dot the 'i's is a defect as is the fact that the use of diacritics > for phoneme distinction increases the likelihood of misspellings and/or > misreadings. That aside. the various symbols are fairly distinct, though > perhaps unduly complex. It is unclear whether in a running hand the > difference between a loop and a point will be maintained. > Thanks for your critique, you raise some valid points. The 'i-dotting' > mechanism is I feel, the weakest part of my proposal. I haven't found > a better mechanism yet, and I am fond of the diacritics so for now it > is unchanged. The distinction between round and point is something i > wasted many-a sheet of paper testing. I'm convinced it works. Some > characters are complex, but they still flow from the pen naturally, so > I don't consider it an issue. I'm intrigued to hear you give the > system a 'B' as you said - to which proposal would > you give an 'A'? Perhaps we can mingle the best points from both. > mu'o > > > 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. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster > Total Access, No Cost. > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com > > > 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. > > -- mu'o mi'e .topy'at. .i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu ------=_Part_7608_9793078.1207513609583 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
I don't like the 's' at all, it's too easy to miss tha= t it's even there. Maybe give it kind of a hump, like _|\_ only not as = pronounced? I don't like p/b, but only because I don't like the sec= ond loop of p/b: I feel that the character as it is but without the top loo= p would be better. I'd like a less convoluted f/v, as well, but it'= s no big deal to me.
 
I like the idea of pre/post stops, but there's the difficulty of t= hings like {la .djan.djonz.}: would the internal '.' be pre- or pos= t-? Or both combined? Or a different character entirely?
 
That said, I think it's nice, and I'd much like to see the fin= al result.
 
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:36 PM, John E Clifford = <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wr= ote:
Alas, I was doing this from memo= ry; my set of Lojban scripts has disappeared into some archive which in tur= n has gone onto one of the forty or so disks lying around.  I can in f= act find only one or two other actual scripts and a discussion about how to= best do things given that we want an analytic script (i.e., one that indic= ates the significant phonological features of each phoneme in the structure= of the character).  Since I more or less automatically give thoroughl= y analytic scripts Cs or below (characters automatically blur into clusters= that are going to be misread), looking at these has no point.  As I r= ecall (and this is from more than a decade ago, I am pretty sure -- maybe a= whole wifetime ago),  the A scripts  gave each character a disti= nctive outline -- typically two (redundancy) distinctive  marks -- &nb= sp;and had a complexity roughly  matched to the frequency of occurrenc= e (inversely rather).  The  big problems then were  that mos= t of the
 characters were rather complex and that (more or less consequently) c= ursive forms did not come naturally.  I remember someone saying that t= hey could not code many of the characters into the printers of the time (24= pin dot matrix?). None would have been an A+ then, but maybe some of this = gives some direction (but note that I personally, having gotten used to Lat= in alphabet skimming, don't see the point of changing anyhow).

----- Original Message ----
From: LakMeer Krav= id <lakmeerkravid@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.= org
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 9:54:28 AM
Subject: [l= ojban] Re: Original orthography draft now online for critique

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:40 AM, John E Clifford <<= a href=3D"mailto:kali9putra@yahoo.com">kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:<= br>> I'd say somewhere a bit above the middle of the range of propos= als (a B of some sort -- roughly on a par with the Latin alphabet).  H= aving to go back to dot the 'i's is a defect as is the fact that th= e use of diacritics for phoneme distinction increases the likelihood of mis= spellings and/or misreadings.  That aside. the various symbols are fai= rly distinct, though perhaps unduly complex.  It is unclear whether in= a running hand the difference between a loop and a point will be maintaine= d.
Thanks for your critique, you raise some valid points. The 'i-dotting&#= 39;
mechanism is I feel, the weakest part of my proposal. I haven't = found
a better mechanism yet, and I am fond of the diacritics so for now= it
is unchanged. The distinction between round and point is something i
was= ted many-a sheet of paper testing. I'm convinced it works. Some
char= acters are complex, but they still flow from the pen naturally, so
I don= 't consider it an issue. I'm intrigued to hear you give the
system a 'B' as you said - to which proposal would
you give an &= #39;A'? Perhaps we can mingle the best points from both.
mu'o

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.






&nbs= p;    ___________________________________________________________= _________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering y= ou one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals= .yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com


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.




--
mu'o mi'e .topy'at.

.i= .a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu=20 ------=_Part_7608_9793078.1207513609583-- 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.