Re: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for entropy in communication ?

["John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Well, a lot of "words" in Chinese are phonologically identical, but the problem is solved by not using a given word in isolation but rather embedded in a cloud of distinctive other words.  When a Chinese speaks of shrimp, for example, the expression he uses translates as something like "shrimp shrimp [a different word] fish bug" (from memory, details may vary, though not the principle).  The point is that languages have various ways around unclarity but it is not obvious what Lojban's are in the cmavo cases, at least.  This matter is scarcely unique to Lojban, even to the point of having been warned early on: toki pona for "all" is 'ale' and for "no" is 'ala', clearly worse than 'ro' and 'no'.


Sent from my iPad

On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I believe that most Chinese words sound the same for an ordinary English
>> speaker because the latter is just not used to it's phonology.
>> But still Chinese is the language with which you can send people to outer
>> space. Does it mean that this language is bad?
> 
> 
> No, you miss the point.
> 
> The problem is not with pronounciation in itself but with *phonemes*.
> 
> Phonemes are defined as smallest units of phonological type that carry
> meaning in a double segmentation scheme.
> 
> That is, /b/ and /p/ are english phonemes, not because they're not the
> same sounds, but because there is a pair of words such as "bit" /
> "pit", and thus it is wise to consider an opposition between them.
> 
> But in other languages, such as chinese, b and p are not distinct phonemes.
> 
> Which is no probleme, because Chinese has other meaningful opposition
> pairs, such as "plosive" vs "mute", or "nasalized" versus "no-nasal"
> 
> .
> 
> And thus, /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/ /u/ are phonemes in lojban in the
> contradistinction set of so'V
> 
> But different words with opposite meanings IN THE SAME PARADIGME
> differ form only one phoneme, which is not wise
> 
> ---
> 
> (Also, "a lot", "few", "all" and "none" do not differ only from one
> feature in Chinese...  but from a lot a differente phonological
> feature.  We don't care if "all" and "horse" are very near.  But we
> care this be the case for "all" and "none" !!!)
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.