From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Jan 28 07:54:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 28 Jan 2002 15:54:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 7877 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2002 15:54:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jan 2002 15:54:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2002 15:54:19 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:27:40 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:53:19 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:53:04 +0000 To: lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] Bible translation style question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jay: #On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, And Rosta wrote: #> Where I do see a SAE bias is, say, in the choice among the following: #> #> 1. lo broda cu brode #> 2. da broda gi'e brode #> 3. da ge broda gi brode #> #> These are equivalent, but the first is the most favoured and the last th= e #> least. Why is that? # #Because 3 is the longest option, and anyone with sense is as lazy a typist #as possible? # #And 2 and 3 are another full syllable longer than 1, so I doubt they'd #even manage to win if you start speaking them. # #I am, by the way, only partially serious. Do you happen to have another #example of SAE bias handy where syllable count or character length or #simplicity of the cmavo used can't be the cause? I am rather tuned out of Lojban matters, so don't have other examples to mind.=20 Regarding syllable counting, I think we have to bear in mind the following: (1) the phonology of Lojban is such that only a very limited number of=20 monosyllabic words were available; (2) it was impossible for the language designers to know in advance of usag= e which locutions would be the most favoured and to accordingly ensure that those locutions would be the shortest As a result, the choice of which locutions got the shorter forms was to some extent arbitrary. If usage is then guided by syllable counting then those arbitrary decisions will get entrenched. I fully understand the imperatives of brevity, but the mode of usage that most respects the Lojban design is one that ignores issues of brevity (for the reasons given above). On the basis of such usage (hopefully not al= l=20 from SAE-speakers) it would eventually become possible to discern which=20 locutions SHOULD have had the shortest forms (zipfeanly, being the most=20 favoured). According to Lojbab, at such a point it would be possible to=20 reassign cmavo and make other revisions, but I personally can't believe tha= t would ever happen. --And.