From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Dec 08 15:48:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Dec 2002 23:48:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 13190 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 23:48:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 23:48:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 23:48:09 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021208234808.ZMKN2204.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:48:08 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021208182642.032c99a0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:38:57 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: More stuff In-Reply-To: <20021208231452.GA26904@digitalkingdom.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021207184529.00a9ddc0@pop.east.cox.net> <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"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 03:14 PM 12/8/02 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >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/ It was mentioned recently by someone, and thinkit isn't present now to my knowledge, so it bothers someone else. > > 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. It IS worse. Indeed, one of the problems with text-to-(computer)-speech with Lojban is the g/k distinction. Nora also comments that whispering was one of the considerations; I suspect also that we were trying to be considerate of other languages that do not make a voiced/unvoiced distinction (I believe Chinese is one). (Nora says she has more problem with djica/jdice). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org