From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 08 15:15:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Dec 2002 23:15:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 99370 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 23:15:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 23:15:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 23:15:02 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LAda-0007Up-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:15:02 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LAdV-0007UB-00; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:14:57 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LAdQ-0007U2-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:14:52 -0800 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:14:52 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: More stuff Message-ID: <20021208231452.GA26904@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021207122552.03ab9b50@pop.east.cox.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021207184529.00a9ddc0@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021207184529.00a9ddc0@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 3315 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:24:29PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > At 11:40 PM 12/7/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >You are likely right about the lack of redundancy, but (a) it is > >unlikely to be a frequent problem, given that word recognition uses > >pragmatic as well as phonetic clues, > > On the contrary, it has already been a problem. TLI Loglan had it > with their numbers (which are ni ne to te fo fe so se vo ve), which > Bob Chassell and others had problems with, so I made the Lojban set > what it is now - yet people object to re/rei. s/people/thinkit/ > But we instituted our own redundancy problem with se/te/ve/xe, a move > that I much regretted later, but which was noticed in 1989 when we > first tried to have Lojban conversation. Meanwhile one of the > principles behind TLI's Great Morphological Revision (GMR) in 1982 had > been to eliminate collisions between gismu that sounded too close > together (though they did not go so far as we did: they still have > such pairs as garti/karti among their gismu). If you can convince me that garti/karti is worse that kalci/kelci, I'l be very impressed. > anyone who has tried spelling words out orally in Lojban knows how > much of a problem all the Cy alphabet words can be. Trick: cy. po zo cusku dy. po zo dunli, etc. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi