[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: "la" rule

On 11/13/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 08:29:32PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> The la rule isn't required with standard (spaces included)
> orthography, and without a speaking community.  When we have a
> skilled speaking community, we can find out whether la in names in
> the spoken language causes problems for humans - after all, humans
> can parse English and other human languages successfully, and they
> aren't audiovisually isomorphic.

So it's OK to leave a rule that people will often violate because
people can deal with that sort of thing?

That's just...  It's like you *want* to kill Lojban.

I want a language that will *actually* have audio-visual
isomorphism.  In practice.  With real people.


Is this really about audio-visual isomorphism? I mean, if the "la"
restriction weren't there, wouldn't *both* written and spoken Lojban
be technically ambiguous? (Even though the intent would be clearer in
the written form, given spaces?) Then it would be a matter of
unambiguous parsing. But since both written and spoken would be
ambiguous in the same way, we'd still have isomorphism.

Chris Capel
--
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)