In the simplest possible manner, I like this; can't remember seeing it before...
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Escape Landsome
<escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
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.