[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobyrne: Alphabet]
Yay! I'm on the list now. I can defend my message!
Before I start, in the interests of disclosure, and providing a context
for my comments:
I am an idealist. It is my weakness. I do not think of implementation
difficulties. I don't think of the awkward transition period. I put
very little value on cultural inertia. These are all passing things. I
think of the goal. And I try and think of the broader implications of
the goal. I love ideals. At least, some of them; genocides have been
'justified' by ideals. Lojbanistan appears to be a land where I cannot
physically hurt someone, even unintentionally, and is still academic and
theoretical enough that I feel I can safely unleash my idealism to the
furthest corners.
I know I'm still in a place where I can hurt people (other than
physically). If I call someone names, please ban me from the forum. If
I bash up an idea, I don't mean to bash the person proposing it. I
would love to learn, and, yes, I suppose it's probably called arrogance,
maybe even teach a little, on this forum.
But as I said, idealism is my weakness. I have blind spots, some of
which I've described above. Please forgive me them, or understand it'll
take quite some persuasion to convince me.
On with the show.
komfo,amonan wrote:
On 6/30/06, *Mark E. Shoulson* <mark@kli.org <mailto:mark@kli.org>> wrote:
Now, to respond to the Lojban-specific points from Hugh O'Byrne...
> From: Hugh O'Byrne
> To: lojban@lojban.org <mailto:lojban@lojban.org>
> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:30:31 -0400
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> I adore Lojban. The biggest weakness it has, IMHO, is its
alphabet.
>
> Recently, I came across "Visible Speech". The symbols of this
alphabet
> indicate the sound they represent by their shape. For
example, 'b',
> 'd', and 'g' (as in bay, day, gay) are represented by the same
> symbol in
> three different orientations, because the sounds are so similar.
> 'm' is
> a nasal 'b' sound, so its symbol is similar to 'b', with a small
> modification. 'n' is a nasal 'd', so it's the 'd' symbol with
the same
> modification. 'ng' is a nasal 'g', so it's the 'g' symbol
with the
> same
> modification.
>
You should know that VS is not unique in this, though it may be one of
the more developed and consistent such systems. I *think* there is some
basis to the claim that hangul is a featural script like this, and
certainly Tolkien's tengwar is.
You can read about the featural properties of Hangul here: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul#Jamo_design
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul#Jamo_design> >
It looks as if Hangul is featural. It doesn't look as nice, at first
glance, but I'll study it too.
Of course, Tengwar. I knew that. I like Tengwar, a lot. Thoughtfully
constructed by a great linguist.
But I like VS more. It appears, to me, to be more complete, more regular.
And tengwar suffers from the same
problem that VS does: all the letters are related and formed in neat
logical ways... which means that they all look alike!! Reading tengwar
takes a lot of practice, because all the letters look more or less
alike. Think how much trouble dyslexics (and even non-dyslexics) have
with d,b,p,q. Now imagine that the *entire alphabet* was like that.
Dyslexia... a very good point which I hadn't even considered.
I'm glad you brought it to my attention. I shall have to sleep on this.
I may write more on this point later. The glib answer would be that
Lojban is more difficult for people who have trouble making formal
logical associations, and that's part of the intentional design of the
language. It is *good* that the grammar is logical, even at the cost of
making it difficult. To make it more difficult for people who have
trouble with spatial aspects of symbols, with the benefit of making the
alphabet more logical, seems in keeping with that Lojban philosophy.
It's not *meant* to be easy, as much as it's meant to be *good*. It's
meant to be clean, and logical. I'm not too comfortable with this
answer, though, because it makes Lojban (or at least my vision of it)
appear terribly elitist.
Dyslexics develop their own, alternate skill sets for recognising and
dealing with symbols. By putting _so_ _much_ emphasis on the spatial
aspects of symbols, this may indeed encourage dyslexics to discover and
hone these skills sooner, rather than gliding by with 'enough'
understanding that's not really enough. Meh. That's a very contrived
defense. Hardly worth mentioning, except I already have (oops). I'll
think about it some more.
This (to my mind) is the most significant argument against VS so far.
BTW, The word 'dyslexic' makes *me* feel dyslexic. I have this nagging
feeling in the pit of my stomach that it should be 'dislexic'. That 'y'
just seems *wrong*. :)
(Want to mess yourself up? Take a text and have the computer replace
every [dbpq] with a *random* character from [dbpq]. Then try to read
it).
I'm not sure what you're trying to express here. Take a text and have
the computer replace every [aeio] with a random character from [aeio],
then try to read it. Pick *any* four (relatively common) letters. Pick
7.8% (approx. frequency of [dbpq] combined) of the letters in the text
randomly, and shuffle them. A demonstration only statistically
demonstrates something when there are control cases too.
I recall also Herman Miller has a phonetic alphabet called Lhoerr
or something like that which is similarly featural, rather like VS in
philosophy though not in actual design.
Lhoerr does seem to be closer to Visible Speech than Hangul. And it
uses a wider set of features on the symbols, which goes some way toward
addressing the "all letters look alike" argument. Thanks! You've
helped me (at least, partially) deflect the biggest argument against the
idea! I like the look of it, I like it quite a bit; I'll investigate
some more.
The other thing, though, is that Lojban in particular doesn't *need*
VS.
The issue of *need* is addressed in another post.
It is the non-solution to a non-problem in Lojban.
You don't see a problem. I do. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.
And VS *is* an (at least partial) solution to the problem I see (Lhoerr
very possibly being even better).
Well, maybe 'problem' isn't the right word for it. Room for improvement
along the philosophy that generated Lojban in the first place. Isn't
that worth aiming for?
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. But Lojban's writing is phonemic already. The
symbols are more or less arbitrary (though strangely familiar to huge
chunks of the literate world), but in order to learn to read with any
fluency you have to learn the symbols iconically, not as collections of
features, so you'd have to learn the VS symbols as if they were
arbitrary too. And once you have your 25-odd symbols learned, there's
no advantage to using VS.
The symbols are arbitrary. They don't have to be (at least, on such a
high level). That's my point.
Stating that familiarity with the symbols is an advantage is dubious to
me. More in another post. In summary: I am *so* familiar with the 'o'
symbol, I was pronouncing the beginning of the word 'Lojban' like
'logic', even after I had read and practised the alphabet out loud half
a dozen times, even after I had used the correct 'o' sound in the middle
of other Lojban words. I doubt I was the only one to do this. Because
of familiarity. (I was very embarrassed when I heard it pronounced
correctly the first time. I had been telling friends and family about
this wonderful language, when I hadn't even been saying the name of the
language properly.)
Learning the symbols iconically, yes, that probably is a necessity for
most people. But the process of learning will be more structured
because of its regularity. The goal is not so the majority of people
don't have to learn something new; in fact, quite the opposite, part of
the point is so that people *do* learn something new and fun, right?
And that learning is in a well-ordered, structured environment.
It's a nifty alphabet, but it doesn't seem to me to add anything to
Lojban. Lojban may add something to IT, though, since it can discuss
features unambiguously...
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 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.
Right, thanks.
But it seems that we don't think in terms of phonemes when we read. I
don't reckon that the idea that /n/ is a nasal /d/ helps a reader very
much and in fact it may hinder understanding. In situations where the
minimal pairs lack a connection in their meanings ( e.g. {na}/{da},
{po}/{bo}), there's not much advantage to expressing the phonemic
connection in the writing system.
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?
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.
Counterpoints: First, Hangul does not seem as well structured as VS, so
VS should be easier. Second, if you *had* learned Hangul by its
featural aspects (and if it really is as expressive as VS), you would
not only have learned an alphabet, but you would have learned more about
the workings of your own mouth and voice. This is information you can
use and apply when learning *any* new language from then on. Bonus!
That being said, hangul could be adapted for Lojban quite easily (in
contravention to statements made at lojban.org <http://lojban.org>);
it's adapting that system for use on computers that would be hard \(>-^)/
mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan
Alphabets such as VS and Lhoerr teach a different way (a more
structured, logical way) 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.
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.
Summary:
Advantages of Latin alphabet:
* Fewer people will have to learn the symbol set (familiarity with the
symbols, which I consider a disadvantage).
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).
* If you are unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet, there is no way to
learn it except by memorizing all the arbitrary symbol-sound associations.
* Less expressive for foreign sounds.
Advantages of VS/Lhoerr:
* It is structured, logical, and consistent; entirely in tune with the
philosophy of Lojban.
* 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.
* It teaches some physical aspects of speech. This could be an
advantage to some people who have difficulty elocuting.
* More expressive for foreign sounds. (But the 'core' symbol set used
in regular day-to-day Lojban still need not be ridiculously large.)
* Written-spoken isomorphism (which some consider a disadvantage).
* It's fun to learn something new. Isn't that why we're learning Lojban
in the first place?
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.)
* Written-spoken isomorphism (which I consider an advantage, a direct
extension of the 'phonemic representation' ideal, which is already
agreed to be an advantage).
* 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.