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

[Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>]

We have no reason to get upset because on ONE PARTICULAR point
natlangs behave better than lojban.

There is even a chance that lojban can be amended in a way it behaves
better then natlangs after the amendment.

Suppose for instance we are given a new consonant "q", one could state
that from now there is a strict equivalence between the phonological
sequences

"a" and "aqa"

"e" and "eqe"

"i" and "iqi"

"o" and "oqo"

"u" and "uqu"

Thus, so'a and so'e can be confused in a noisy environement, but
saying so'aqa ou so'eqe would avoid that.

This is a simple example to show you that discussing a drawback of
lojban does not mean being mean towards it, rather it is what is
expected from anybody here : that is, being scientific and examine
closely and open-mindedly any problem.

[I don't think the solution I proposed is a good one, either.   But at
least it shows this is no dead-end street question.   And also we've
no need to be aggressive.   Meanwhile, natlangs are still better than
lojban on the entropy topic]

-- 
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.