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

[lojban] Re: [hobyrne@gmail.com: Alphabet]

John E Clifford wrote:


--- Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:


Yay!  I'm on the list now.  I can defend my message!


coi xius


coi

I'm trying out a new writing system in replying to this e-mail.  Please
don't take offense, I'm doing it to see if it helps with my focus in
writing a reply, and maybe if it helps in communicating what I wish to
express.  I'll try to make all my "point" summaries value-neutral, as
easily pointed at me as at you, to be fair.


...
Well, Hangul is designed to serve one language, VS is meant to be able to represent all (or a
significant portion of all) languages.  It is thus more complete in the sense of covering more
possibilities, including those not found in some particular language.  This means, of course, that
it includes a lot of stuff that any particular language does not need.   It is consequently not so
useful for a particular language (internally, not for explaining to someone outside).  For
example, it has two sets of velars, which, while phonemic isn some languages are not in Lojban. The distinction has, therefore to be ignored – somehow – for use in Lojban (either opting for 
one – which is inaccurate in some places – or dropping the distinctive features involved,
which means in effect not using VS).


Point: agreed (changed my mind).

In another post, I come to the realise that the core Lojban alphabet is
best a *phonemic* one, *not* a phonetic one.  Phonetics are *too*
specific, and numerous past the point of being burdensome.

So, my aim shifts from implementing a representative phonetic alphabet,
to a representative phonemic alphabet, preferably based on an existing
representative phonetic alphabet (to avoid duplication of work, and
provide an easy bridge to the study of phonetics).


 As for regularity, in its area I don’t see how Hangul
could be more systematic (what I take “regular� to mean).  It is not iconic any more or less
than VS.


Point: muddy semantics.

When I see a larger system with a lot of regularity, next to a smaller
system with a lot of regularity, I will say that the larger system is
more regular.  I concede the point that VS and Hangul may have similar
'density' of regularity, but I maintain my point that with VS covering
more space, it has more of the 'substance' of regularity.  It's a bit
like saying wood is lighter than water, but a branch is heavier than a
raindrop (only with 'space' and 'substance' reversed).


(screed on “logical�) Lojban is logical in the sense that its grammar is based upon Applied
First-Order Predicate Logic.


"screed", I'd never come across that word before. :)

Rhetorical point:  We are working from different definitions of the same
words.

Lojban is logical in more ways than just that.  (More on this below.)


 Consequences of this include that arguments are more transparent
than in ordinary language and that the surface forms of sentences are less remote from the deep
structures.


Right.


 Any other sense of “logical� applied to Lojban needs to be rephrased in some
other terms to be evaluated.


I would counter that Lojban has several logical features, and what you
seem to be calling *the* logical feature of Lojban is just one of them,
and is better called 'first order predicate logic' for reasons of
precision.  The terms 'logic' and 'logical', by themselves, represent
something more general.  I opine that the way in which I'm using the
terminology is more valid, and the term you're using should be qualified
with 'first order predicate' to more accurately represent it.


 The prima facie evaluation under “logical� is that it does not
apply.


Point: conditionally conceded.

Reading your word "logical" as "first order predicate logic", I concur.


 Beyond that (and, indeed, including that) Lojban is *meant* to be easy (how well it
succeeds is another issue).


Opinion point:  We have different values.

Mmm.  My take on it is that Lojban is meant to be *good*.  The better it
is implemented, the easier it will be (in general; but naturally, a more
complete and subtle implementation will inevitably become harder again in some respects), but getting the language easy is a bonus symptomatic side-effect rather than a goal. It may even be a benchmark, during the 
development of the language, but it is still secondary.


 Lojban has been stripped of all the froo-froos (tense, cases, etc.)
of natural languages, completely regularized (and, so simplified).  Even the vocabulary is meant
to be recognizable by most literate speakers (speakers of the major languages) because the words
(the gismu at least) are partially familiar. 

Point: agreed.

That you put this in the paragraph under "screed on 'logical'", I hope,
is an indication you can appreciate that the term 'logical' extends
beyond 'first order predicate logic'.

Right.  I read that much of the basic vocabulary was designed to match
words from several major world languages, weighted by the population
that speaks that language.  It struck me as so utterly, utterly gimmicky
that I laughed out loud. As a friend said, "when you mix all the colours, you'll always get *brown*". Even though I laugh at it, I admire it, because it does embody the spirit of the language. 

The words for the digits are deliberately placed far from each other in
sound-space; I consider this to be a logical feature of Lojban too. Where information is frequently represented in a very dense form, it makes good sense to have that form as error-tolerant as possible, even more so than more common but less critical everyday use. 


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*. :) 

The “dys-�, like “lexic� is from Greek, “dis-“ is Latin.  They also work in slightly
different ways (though they are related).  “dis-“ typically points to the opposite of some
existing term, “dys-“ modifys some term of activity to say it is done badly (as opposed to
“eu-“ for doing it well). So, “dyslexia� is doing lexia badly, not doing the opposite of
lexia.


Point: learned.

:) My wife knows Latin and Greek too.  I get lessons like this from her
occasionally.  It's fun.


   (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.


Messing with the vowels is much less disastrous than with the consonants.  Indeed, we can
generally read fairly well passages in which the vowels are missing altogether, clearly not the
case with consonants.


Part of point: conceded.
Part of point: remains.

Yes, vowels was my first idea, and I realised it wasn't very good.  So I
came up with other ideas.

It still remains that a demonstration without a control case (or several
control cases, as is necessary when several aspects of the experiment
may be relavent) is not a valid demonstration in a scientific sense.


 Consonants form the core of word Gestalts and we generally (once fully
literate) see Gestalts rather than letter strings (English – indeed all written languages –
are more like Chinese than we at first notice).


Point: inquiry.

I don't really understand what you mean by that last bit in the
parentheses.  Perhaps this is not the forum for it, but I'd be
interested to learn what property (properties?) of Chinese you're
referring to.

I seem to remember hearing in a movie (I know, hardly a good source for
hard data) that some aspects of Chinese words, such as singular/plural,
perhaps gender, perhaps tense, are manifested by subtle nuances on the
vowels (well... subtle to an English-speaker... another case of the
boundaries on the phonemic map being drawn in different places).


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.


Lhoerr apprears to be as arbitrary as VS and not to have any real advantages over it.


Point: missed (I'm sorry, this one *does* point at you).

I was not arguing that Lhoerr had advantages over VS in terms of
arbitratiness.  I was arguing that Lhoerr has an advantage over VS in
that it has a wider set of features on the symbols.  I stated that
clearly.  What is a very subtle visual cue in VS, a short line, in a
slightly different place, or a tight curve, is a wider, more sweeping
change to a symbol in Lhoerr.  A more obvious, larger feature is more
easily, more quickly processed in the visual field.  Less chance of
ambiguity when the pen slips slightly, less need to pause and peer at a
symbol closely, these *are* real advantages.


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.


You do apparently have a problem.  You have an aesthetic which finds the use of the Latin alphabet
for Lojban unappealing. But that is your problem, not Lojban’s or Lojbanists’. 

Point: emotional.

I am a Lojbanist.  I'm not a member of the ruling elite, or the steering
committee, I'm not even barely fluent.  I am a Lojbanist.  I do see room
for improvement, and I do think it's a worthy goal, to improve upon
Lojban.  I am a Lojbanist.  I am a part of Lojban.  I will not let you
dismiss me so easily.

Changing my "I do see a problem" to "You do have a problem", from the
purely logical point of view, or for example if translated into Lojban, is transparently erroneous and glaringly misrepresentative. From a human point of view, it was low, cheap, petty, and unfair. I do not deserve that, and I will not let you apply it to me. 

Meta-point: query.

Why are you going on the offensive?

I am upset.  I shall have to look at the rest of this post later.

mi'e .xius.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.