Re: [hobyrne: Alphabet]

[Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com>]

Nathaniel Krause wrote:
> Visible Speech is certainly a clever and intriguing idea, and is well 
> worth considering if a new alphabet is necessary.

As to the necessity of a new alphabet, I've addressed in another post.
I'm not interested in Lojban because I *need* it.  I'm interested in
Lojban because it's *fun*, I enjoy its aesthetic.  The Latin alphabet is
contrary to that aesthetic.

> This might come up, 
> for instance, as part of a plan to get rid of the irregular spelling of 
> English, as was the case with Shavian.

Hm, Shavian seems to be somewhat featural too, as can be seen pretty
clearly in the Wikipedia article.  I like it.  It doesn't look as
complete as VS, though.  (And I may even drop my push for VS to favour
Lhoerr instead; thanks to Mark E. Shoulson for pointing it out to me.)
I'll look into Shavian, too.

> However, I'm not sure I see its 
> relevance to Lojban, which already has regular spelling.

I'm not arguing about spelling, not at all.  For Lojban to have regular
spelling would be only a sensible *prerequisite* to using VS or Lhoerr
as a standard alphabet.  As far as spelling goes, Lojban is fine.  The
language can go further, though.

I'm arguing about the symbols.  The symbols could more directly
represent the sounds.  The symbols are ordered, categorized, and
logical.  When you start thinking on this level, how can you *not* see
the relavence to Lojban?

> The sub-par 
> Latin alphabet just doesn't seem like a significant impediment to 
> learning Lojban. Mr. O'Byrne writes, "If you know most of
> the alphabet, and come across a symbol you haven't seen before, there's
> a good chance you could pronounce it anyway"; but, given that ours only 
> has 24 letters (27 counting period, comma, and space), it should be 
> fairly easy to learn all of them and thus never encounter an unknown 
> symbol. Anyway, I wonder how many literate people there are in the world 
> today who don't already have at least a vague idea what sounds most of 
> the Latin letters stand for (and how many literate people under the age 
> of 35)?

It is not a significant impediment to learning, no.  I'm not as much
interested in making the language _easier_, as I am in making the
language more logical.  It's *easier* not to learn Lojban at all!  Just
stick with your mother tongue.  But that's not what Lojban is about.
Sapir-Whorf is a big idea behind Lojban.  Lojban teaches about
expressiveness.  It could teach on the physical/biological level as well
as the intellectual/conceptual level.  Why not?

Most of the population of the world have more than 'a vague idea' how
the Latin letters sound.  But Lojban is more than a popularity contest.
 Besides, most people have very specific, deep-rooted ideas about how
they sound.  Different ideas in different parts of the world.  Different
ideas in the same part of the world, when the symbols are in different
contexts.  This is a point that works *against* Lojban as an
'easy-to-learn' language.  More importantly, it works against Lojban as
a culturally-neutral communications platform.  Not only do different
languages have different rules for the sounds of the letters, different
accents in the same language have different rules.  If you carry the
same symbols, you'll inevitably carry some of the local accent.  I was
recently in Boston, or as the locals say, 'Bwoston'.  Boston Lojbanists,
I have no doubt, will be more easily understood by other Boston
Lojbanists, and less easily understood by... say, English Lojbanists.
Precisely *because* Lojban holds onto this old symbol set.  It is an
impediment to global communication.

mi'e .xius.