From lojban+bncCKv97aq_GRC92NPfBBoEMBOusA@googlegroups.com Thu May 20 01:01:20 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OF0gs-0007S7-Jw; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:01:19 -0700 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26sf221241wwf.16 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:01:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=S+FSyVhaQmIrSzDr8pQmFTcafrWQLJ4ofQ+xQ4zDNpk=; b=Huaut86pi/8mvdJeWQVp372UeF9TRfXTmYNtfILnUdrn99I8eHEEnemnfjWds5AuZL LvGJ2s3S7oTHT6rQDxurXKyGXXkPdmlW4rF+AhMRXf3KSXU99aSoTGhMtVBQ96DjzxJD Gdke9ebxUSW7WBGHvG7wTk5jHsir1yreBZ0YQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=uEr4fW7k2niYiHD4R8KfV/cQVa/5jKaWehGTzFLkIAgM0EooW48Dqlx3syQWmtWIiI q0eyWlp0vldyY3sHycsQ8dVEBKW2XjE0fnf9r1NYNhOeuVTULezYMwaypuqkV3gUKcPx MCo7/GsyhKGVmbEQe1FEBWiDe0epI4XuF2+zo= Received: by 10.223.7.12 with SMTP id b12mr1349044fab.0.1274342461444; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:01:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.147.144 with SMTP id l16ls6841941fav.3.p; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.53.20 with SMTP id k20mr860903fag.16.1274342459955; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.53.20 with SMTP id k20mr860902fag.16.1274342459900; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com (mail-fx0-f41.google.com [209.85.161.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 22si6615558fas.4.2010.05.20.01.00.58; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lamelnyk@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.41; Received: by fxm13 with SMTP id 13so1679721fxm.0 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:00:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.81.38 with SMTP id i38mr1160770mul.112.1274342458620; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.117.15 with HTTP; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:00:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100518160715.GA6617@sdf.lonestar.org> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:00:58 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Named multiples From: Oleksii Melnyk To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lamelnyk@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lamelnyk@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: lamelnyk@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65b5e04918612048701f9b3 --0016e65b5e04918612048701f9b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2010/5/20 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Oleksii Melnyk > wrote: > > A human parser will either recognize the word, ... or (most likely) > they won't recognize it, in which case they will say "ki'a" whether > Not so with the names. As they are "arbitrary label", they always are "known", without a recognizing. Are you saying that with the current grammar ... I will attempt a > possible correction ... whereas with the change ... I will not. Is that t= he > point? That is. Under the current syntax, names are always clearly labelled, so, listener knows, that here will go something, not expected to be known in advance to understand. After the change, listener will never be sure, if he should look up the nex= t word in the memory, or just use the letter sequence, it hears, as the name. So, I'm not sure, if the current syntax complexity is really needless. > I don't understand what you mean by that. Trying to read what aloud > would push the language towards... > So, when we'll got big enough user base, taught on the text with enough unlabelled names, they will tend to use that names in speech, and will tend to shorten the required pause to zero, as it annoys a lot. That will result in a lot of misunderstanding, causing a language drift. --=20 mu'o mi'e lex --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --0016e65b5e04918612048701f9b3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2010/5/20 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Oleksii Melnyk <lamelnyk@gmail.com> wrote:

A human parser will either recognize the word, ... or (most likely) they won't recognize it, in which case they will say "ki'a&quo= t; whether

Not so with the names. As they are &quo= t;arbitrary label", they always are "known", without a recog= nizing.

Are you saying that with the current grammar ... I will attempt a
possible correction ... whereas with the change ... I will not. Is that the= point?

That is. Under the current syntax, names are a= lways clearly labelled, so, listener knows, that here will go something, no= t expected to be known in advance to understand.

After the change, listener will never be sure, if he should look up the= next word in the memory, or just use the letter sequence, it hears, as the= name.

So, I'm not sure, if the current syntax complexity is re= ally needless.
=A0
I don't understand what you mean by that. Trying to read what aloud
would push the language towards...

So, when we'= ;ll got big enough user base, taught on the text with enough unlabelled nam= es, they will tend to use that names in speech, and will tend to shorten th= e required pause to zero, as it annoys a lot. That will result in a lot of = misunderstanding, causing a language drift.

--
mu'o mi'e lex

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0016e65b5e04918612048701f9b3--