This can be reasonable if we take into account that many lerfu have several possible phonemic realisations each (most notably "th/h" for { ' }).
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:50:24 PM UTC+4, gleki wrote:
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:49:12 PM UTC+4, Escape Landsome 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"
Oh. If you replace VqV with V3 (in Mandarine third tone, where V - vowel) that would be quite reasonable too.
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]