[lojban] [hedybos@hotmail.com: Feedback (long, sorry)))]

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

I am not anywhere near enough of a linguist to handle this.

-Robin

----- Forwarded message from Hedy Bos <hedybos@hotmail.com> -----

Subject: Feedback (long, sorry)))
From: Hedy Bos <hedybos@hotmail.com>
To: lojban@lojban.org
Envelope-to: lojban@lojban.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:00:43 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [84.82.157.219]
X-Originating-Email: [hedybos@hotmail.com]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2004 11:23:03.0070 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4F773E0:01C4B504]
X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:36:28 by milter-greylist-1.4 (transfinite.hypercomplex.net [69.55.227.156]); Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by transfinite.hypercomplex.net id i9IC0dUK011653
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on 
	chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_30,DEAR_SOMETHING 
	autolearn=no version=2.64


Dear Sir(s),

I have the following feedback on Lojban:

-The denotation is hell. A period expressing a phoneme? Why? And what?s with 
the phobia for the symbol ?h?? If your defence is ?it is used only to 
separate vowels?, then there still would be no reason why the symbol ?h? 
could n?t be used.
The first basic rule in lexicography is ?be consistent?. If you choose to go 
roman, go roman all the way! Don?t use diacretic (and illogical) symbols 
that will chase beginners away instantaneously! It?s pretty much illegible 
like this. The apostrophe I can live with, but don?t incorporate something 
like a period in the system. Many languages express a normal phoneme such as 
a glottal stop with an apostrophe (or an alif). Use an ?h? for all I care. 
Don?t use a dot.

-it?s either under- or overspecified. If it really is such a logical 
language then let logic do it?s job and dare to make a choice for either 
system. Especially the deictic/locative marking is hopelessly overspecified 
in an innatural manner. Languages naturally have either an unspecified form 
(mi klama) or a specified (mi su klama) form. Nobody needs an superspecified 
form. If it does, it will come naturally, when it?s not a pidgin anymore. 
Indonesian manages well (with  ?saya pergi? and ?saya sudah pergi? as the 
two only options) I don?t think Lojban needs to specify everthing in such a 
frantic way. It?s logical, people can think for themselves.
Common people have no use for such specifications as mentioned in the 
section about deictics. They will not use such forms. It could be useful as 
a jagon maybe, but then I still think that people will fill in the gaps in a 
language for themselves. For example: people living in mountainous areas 
tend to modify their deictic system to be able to express referrals to 
objects according to their relative position concerning height (?that goat 
above me? ?that house on the same level as me?). These things come 
naturally. No pilot/mountaineer will spontaneously use a form as predicted 
in your grammar in a situation where it is needed (?enemy at twelve o?clock 
above...?), nor will he look up in a grammar what form he should have used. 
If the situation he would like to describe keeps occuring, he will come up 
with a ?patch? himself. The only chance that correct Lojban will be used, 
would be when pilots and mountain people learn the propre terms in avance. 
The greengrocer won?t. He doesn?t care. He does not need this kind of 
specifications. If people like him would keep ending up in a situation 
requiring the specifications they will come up with them. I predict it will 
be something else then what you produced. Let this go. Or create 
jargon-vocabularies for every professional group only. Still you will be 
left with inconsistencies I?m afraid.

-the assumption that natural languages are inadequate aggravates me. I am 
convinced that if something does not occur in a natural language this must 
be for a (simple) reason: it doesn?t work! So the following irritations come 
forth out of this opposition:

-why so many arguments for one stem? Why not express these with 
prepositions? This would be more logical and would cause the number of 
illogical arguments one would have to learn in order to be able to use a 
stem to it?s fullest extense to decrease tremendously. There is no language 
that would refuse to express prepositional phrases in such manner. Because 
this is more logical ?nd it decreases complicated lines of thoughts when 
using a stem. For example:

barja              bar               x1 is a tavern/bar/pub ?serving x2 to 
audience/patrons x3?
The x2 and x3 can be expressed more logically with some basic prepositions 
in my opinion, which would save everybody a lot of puzzling.

-why use separate stems for compounding? It does make the entire utterance 
shorter, but it also increases the number of forms to be learned. Even more 
so, there is no unambiguous way to derive the compound-stem from the 
original stem! Why not choose for a simple head-dependent construction? It 
will increase the entire compound with one syllable only. Most languages 
work just fine with this system. Some do use a possessive marker, such as 
Roman languages, or a clitic such as Bantu-languages. The only languages 
(consistently) changing a stem are root-based languages with a skeletal 
character (Afro-Asiatic) . Either switch to that (for the sake of logic 
and/or consistency) or accept that a compound will end up with four 
syllables. Never hurt nobody.

Nevertheless I will check out these pages regularly. I do think you are on 
to something.
By the way: how does one derive causative forms, stative forms etc.?  Are 
they derived from the same root or do they have separate forms? I think the 
first option would be more logical.

Regards,


H.Bos

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail en Messenger on the move http://mobile.msn.com/?lc=nl-nl


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"