From kfa@gmx.net Sun Jan 03 02:55:52 2010 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NRO7f-0004oR-Up for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:55:51 -0800 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Jan 2010 10:55:40 -0000 Received: from f050242061.adsl.alicedsl.de (EHLO kobra) [78.50.242.61] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 03 Jan 2010 11:55:40 +0100 X-Authenticated: #370125 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX193ihAfexR3oh5Q+Hax3QFBGC1WbrOU/mV0mBAAy2 fY/Q91SuaMyuuH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: lojban-list@lojban.org Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:55:39 +0100 Subject: Initial impression MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable From: "Klaus F. Abel" Message-ID: User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.10 (Win32) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.62 Dear friends, A happy new year to everybody! I just discovered this site and find it really exciting. As a computer = programmer, the idea of a completely parseable human language sounds = ingenious. I'll definitely want to learn more about Lojban. My native language is German, I'm fluent in English and Esperanto, have = = basic knowledge in French, Spanish, Finnish, Russian, and got just a tas= te = of Chinese. From an initial impression, regarding the chapter on alternative = orthographies, it appears to me that development of Lojban is still in = flux. Is that correct? If yes, I hope it's not a complete heresy to sound off a few spontaneous= = dislikes which might put some people off getting friendly with it. 1. First, the usage of punctuation marks for pronounciation aides is = confusing and looks simply ugly. Although this may sound subjective, the= = development of our various alphabets has come a long way also in the fie= ld = of aesthetics. Therefore I believe that many would agree in an initial = judgment about a language that deliberately ruptures the image. = Punctuation ought to be reserved for marking various degrees of breaks a= nd = pauses in the flux of speech or thought - between words, not within. It = = adds structure to written text to make it easier on the eye - remember h= ow = it came about, most ancient and early medieval scripts did not use = punctuation at all. Even if this language uses marker words in its stead= , = if you want it to be read by humans and not only by machines, you have t= o = accomodate human perception to a degree. And the apostrophe represents a= n = omission, either to indicate sloppy speech, to facilitate rhythm keeping= = in poetry, or the like. All these identifications are preoccupied and no= t = easily unlearned. 2. If the apostrophe between vocals stands simply for a spoken 'h' sound= , = what's the point of not using the 'h' proper, especially since it is = otherwise not used at all? The argument of better visibility and greater= = simplicity of the apostrophe is quite subjective and I can't find myself= = subscribing to it. In that case, why such a privilege for the 'h' sound = = over any other? Then a different alphabet should be developed with overa= ll = simper graphics, that would facilitate faster handwriting and easier = recognizability than the Roman letters. Shavian or Shorthand are example= s = of such an endeavour. 3. Most irritating I find the full stop at the beginning of a word to ma= rk = the glottal stop where a word begins with a vocal. Most languages don't = = write the glottal stop at all, but I assume there is a good reason for i= t = which I will discover when reading on. Maltese is an exception to this, = it = uses the 'q' for the glottal stop. As this letter also has been otherwis= e = disused for Lojban, it seems just perfect to fill the spot. 4. Same goes for the comma in the middle of the word to separate vocals = = that do not form a diphtong. Again the 'q' would seem perfect in its = place. This would introduce different pronounciation rules for the 'q' = depending on its position, but sufficiently simple and unambiguous. 5. The forced adding of an 's' (or at least any consonant, if I understa= nd = correctly) to transliterated names that end on a vocal comes across to m= e = almost as an act of violence against a sacrosanct name, I find it = disturbing at best. Yet again the 'q' seems the ideal fit for the purpos= e = of fulfilling the rule that it must end on a consonant. It would not alt= er = the sound of the spoken name, since it would remain silent as the glotta= l = stop at the end of a word is not pronounced (hardly doable at all). (Cou= ld = this possibly create ambiguity in spoken language?) An alternative for the silent consonant could be 'w', as it occurs = sometimes in German (e.g. the name Pankow, a borough of Berlin, is = pronounced "pa=C5=8Bko=CB=90"). From this viewpoint it would be even bet= ter suited = than 'q' to replace the midword comma as well. But these issues are honestly just pristine feedback aimed at only servi= ng = the course. I am not aware of others having expressed similar or contrar= y = thoughts. All in all, I can only laud this project and its creators, = wishing you great success in the coming year, decade, and beyond. Sincerely, Klaus F. Abel