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

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 21 June 2012 11:49, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

A simpler solution:

: <- [ː]

a:
e:
i:
o:
u:
so'a:
so'e:
so'i:
so'o:
so'u:
...

Extend the vowel so that it can be heard out of the noise.
Additionally: speak louder.

If this doesn't work, then the problem isn't the language but either
the speaker's own vowel pronunciation or the surrounding noise itself.
Chances are, in such an overwhelmingly noisy environment, even your
"q" would be misheard as a different consonant: "aqa" as "aka", "iqi"
as "iji", etc. Consonants are no less mistakable than vowels. (I
regularly participate in my Japanese peers' Lojban workshop on Skype,
and not uncommon are confusions between /l/ & /r/, /b/ & /v/, /j/ &
/dj/, /z/ & /dz/, and /'/ & /x/, even when the phone line is fairly
clear. They could have complained about this and proposed a reform
analogous to yours, but they don't and instead just roll with it, keep
practicing.)


> 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.
> [...]
> 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]

I don't think any irrational conservatism has been involved at least
in my responses to your idea. I'm actually rather leftist in this
community -- I can be in favor of any well-founded progressive
proposals aimed at improving Lojban or even creating a better
offshoot.

You are yet to substantiate your claim that {so'a/so'e/...} etc. are a
real problem. You have to explain how "a noisy environment" is or will
be so common a condition that a phonological/morphological reform is
necessary.

(Please note that I'm not angry at you. Don't be discouraged from
discussing your concerns about Lojban with other jbopre.)

mu'o

-- 
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.