Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: More stuff

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:38:57 -0500

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 [email-masked]
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