Lojban In General

Posted by Minimiscience on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 12:57 GMT posts: 3588

de'i li 22 pi'e 10 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Luke Bergen .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> While studying vocab I noticed the existence of {danfu}, {dandu}, and
> {danlu}. When the LLG was putting lojban together was there no intention of
> making the different words sound distinctive?
.skamyxatra

There was an intention, and Lojban was in fact designed so that the {gismu}
sound distinctive, just not (apparently) by your personal standards of
"distinctive." (Also, you missed "{dansu}.") See item 4 of the {gismu}
creation algorithm in section 4.14 of the CLL for more information.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
jicmu traji zifre fa loi remna lonu senpi

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by lukebergen on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 12:57 GMT posts: 493

I see. I haven't read chapter 4 in quite some time. Maybe I should go back
over it again. I guess it can't be helped that some words will sound
similar (I'm not even going to bring up similarity of cmavo).

Another interesting one I've been tripped up on: cikre, ckire. They don't
so much sound the same as much as they look the same.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>wrote:

> de'i li 22 pi'e 10 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Luke Bergen .fy. cusku zoi
> skamyxatra.
> > While studying vocab I noticed the existence of {danfu}, {dandu}, and
> > {danlu}. When the LLG was putting lojban together was there no intention
> of
> > making the different words sound distinctive?
> .skamyxatra
>
> There was an intention, and Lojban was in fact designed so that the {gismu}
> sound distinctive, just not (apparently) by your personal standards of
> "distinctive." (Also, you missed "{dansu}.") See item 4 of the {gismu}
> creation algorithm in section 4.14 of the CLL for more information.
>
> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
>
> --
> jicmu traji zifre fa loi remna lonu senpi
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

The cmavo space is essentially full, so has the minimum distinction and thus the maximal possibilities for confusion. It is helped only by a slight attempt to put very similar words in radically different categories, so unlikely to occur in the same environment. The attempts at spreading built into the algorithm were not well thought through (though better than JCB's none). On the other hand, getting 1400 gismu-shaped strings that are maximally distinct is something akin to the three-body problem, where every new datum forces reconfiguration of all those already aboard. So, talk louder, repeat yourself, say it in different words, etc. Noisy channels are the problem for every medium and every language.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Thu, October 22, 2009 4:16:00 PM
Subject: lojban Re: danfu dandu danlu

I see. I haven't read chapter 4 in quite some time. Maybe I should go back over it again. I guess it can't be helped that some words will sound similar (I'm not even going to bring up similarity of cmavo).

Another interesting one I've been tripped up on: cikre, ckire. They don't so much sound the same as much as they look the same.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:

de'i li 22 pi'e 10 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Luke Bergen .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
>
>> While studying vocab I noticed the existence of {danfu}, {dandu}, and
>>> {danlu}. When the LLG was putting lojban together was there no intention of
>>> making the different words sound distinctive?
>.skamyxatra
>
>>There was an intention, and Lojban was in fact designed so that the {gismu}
>>sound distinctive, just not (apparently) by your personal standards of
>>"distinctive." (Also, you missed "{dansu}.") See item 4 of the {gismu}
>>creation algorithm in section 4.14 of the CLL for more information.
>
>>mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
>
>>--
>>jicmu traji zifre fa loi remna lonu senpi
>
>
>>To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
>>with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
>>you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

Posted by PierreAbbat on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 12:57 GMT posts: 324

On Thursday 22 October 2009 16:59:18 Luke Bergen wrote:
> While studying vocab I noticed the existence of {danfu}, {dandu}, and
> {danlu}.

I don't find those confusing. The ones I continually mess up are the words
that both sound and mean the similar: ratcu/ractu, garna/grana, mulno/culno,
karce/carce/marce, stizu/stuzi (some uses of "seat" are more stuzi than
stizu). I also confuse "jivna" and "javni" because their rafsi could have
been each other's, so a lujvo like "jvojva" doesn't help me remember
whether "rule" is "jivna" or "javni".

As to cmavo: some groups, like BAI and TAhE, are scattered over cmavo space,
while others, like LE and ZI and VI, are arranged regularly (with the
exception that I made several interrogative conjunctions break the rules).
One sub-selma'o that I think should have been scattered instead of arranged
is the ko'a-series. They differ only in the last vowel, which is normally
unstressed, and before a brivla like "krataigo" can't be stressed unless a
pause comes after it, so it's easy to mishear e.g. "ko'o" as "ko'u". Of
course Lojban isn't the only language with this problem; Portuguese has "ele"
and "ela".

Pierre

--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.