A posteriori IAL conlangs
Andrew Nowicki
conlang. How should we choose its vocabulary? Perhaps
we should borrow it from the most popular languages.
Mandarin Chinese words may be too difficult to pronounce,
so the vocabulary may be borrowed proportionately from
the remaining most popular languages: English, 19%,
Spanish 18%, Hindi/Urdu 15%, Arabic 12%, Bengali 11%,
Portuguese 9%, Russian 9%, and Japanese 7%.
It would be very difficult to persuade speakers of other
languages (Mandarin, German, etc.) that their languages
are so inferior that none of their words should be
included in the new conlang. There are so many spoken
languages that combining all of them into a single
conlang and resolving all the linguistic conflicts is
not feasible. This political problem is so severe that
a posteriori conlang cannot be universally accepted as
the international auxiliary language.
A priori (artificial) conlangs have the advantage of
being politically and culturally neutral. Some of them
are better than others. At present Ygyde conlang is the
best potential international auxiliary language because
it is easy to pronounce, easy to understand, and easier
to learn than any other language. Unfortunately, Ygyde
is not finished yet. Its vocabulary has only 2700 words.
In my opinion 6000 word vocabulary would suffice for
general purpose conversation. If you are a serious IAL
conlanger, try to beat Ygyde -- try to make a conlang
that is easier to learn than Ygyde. If you can't beat
Ygyde, help make it a mature language. Coining new
compound words from a limited number of root words (180)
resembles solving a crossword puzzle. It is fun work.
Ygyde basics: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyde.htm
Dictionary: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyded.htm
Grammar: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygydeg.htm
Don
from scratch," rather than basing it on something that already exists.
All conlangs are artificial to some extent, but some have more
similarity to existing vocabulary and grammar than others. There is,
apparently, a direct relationship between the amount of such similarity
and ease of learning.
Why would you exclude Mandarin from an a posteriori language? I don't
agree that the words are hard to pronounce. The grammar is also very
simple. The only difficult thing about Mandarin is the writing, which
one would not need to carry over into the conlang.
We already have several IALs that are much easier to learn (and much
less of a burden on the memory) than Ygyde. They have also been
developed to the point of making them really practical and useful. The
list is already pretty long, but would certainly include Esperanto,
Interlingua, and their derivatives. The only drawback attached to these
languages (a not-insuperable one, I think) is that they are pan-European
rather than pan-Terran languages.
I don't have to try to invent a conlang that is easier to learn than
Ygyde--I've already done it (as have many, many others). My language,
Almensk, currently has a vocabulary of 4,800 words, and will eventually
have a basic vocabulary of approximately 9,000 words. It looks a lot
like Scandinavian (which gives it a certain kind of neutrality, I
guess), but builds on knowledge that the many speakers of English,
either natively or as a second language, already have. I believe that
this last is something that any successful IAL candidate will have to
do.
--Don
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/almensk
Gerard van Wilgen
"Andrew Nowicki" <and...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41C6F93F...@nospam.com...
> Suppose that we were going to make a new a posteriori
> conlang. How should we choose its vocabulary? Perhaps
> we should borrow it from the most popular languages.
> Mandarin Chinese words may be too difficult to pronounce,
That is a meaningless statement. Mandarin is not difficult to pronounce for
native speakers of Mandarin, and neither for speakers of other Chinese
languages I suppose (many of those languages have a more complicated system
of tones than Mandarin). Other speakers of tonal languages, such as the
Thai, may not find Mandarin pronounciation difficult either.
> so the vocabulary may be borrowed proportionately from
> the remaining most popular languages: English, 19%,
> Spanish 18%, Hindi/Urdu 15%, Arabic 12%, Bengali 11%,
> Portuguese 9%, Russian 9%, and Japanese 7%.
If ease of pronunciation for a large percentage of the world population
would be a consideration, only Japanese with a somewhat simplified phonology
would qualify. All the others are very difficult to pronounce for many
people, especially people in South East Asia.
By the way, what happened to French? Too difficult to pronounce, or not
popular enough?
> It would be very difficult to persuade speakers of other
> languages (Mandarin, German, etc.) that their languages
> are so inferior that none of their words should be
> included in the new conlang.
Indeed, how are you going to convince a German that for most people in the
world a word like "Fisch" [fiS] is far more difficult to pronounce than
"fish" [fIS]?
Gerard van Wilgen
--
http://www.majstro.com/Web/Majstro/sdict.php?gebrTaal=eng
Multilingual translation dictionary
Andrew Nowicki
> We already have several IALs that are much easier to learn (and much
> less of a burden on the memory) than Ygyde. They have also been
> developed to the point of making them really practical and useful. The
> list is already pretty long, but would certainly include Esperanto,
> Interlingua, and their derivatives...
When I look at Esperanto words, I can guess the meaning
of a few percent of them. The rest is a mystery. When
I look at compound Ygyde words, I can guess the meaning
of all of them. (Maybe because I made most of them.) I
do not have good memory, but one reading is enough for me
to memorize the compound Ygyde word for ever. If you cannot
guess the exact meaning of a compound Ygyde word, at least
you get rough idea of what it may mean. For example, if
the last syllable of the compound Ygyde word is "by," you
know it is some kind of food, so it is safe to eat.
Ygyde is not just another conlang but the equivalent of
a nuclear weapon in a world of bow and arrow conlangs.
Phonetic Picture - Writing (www.lautbildschrift.de) is
cute, but it looks like road signs and lacks means to
express abstract ideas. I cannot imagine how it can evolve
into a real language.
> I don't have to try to invent a conlang that is easier to learn than
> Ygyde--I've already done it (as have many, many others). My language,
> Almensk, currently has a vocabulary of 4,800 words, and will eventually
> have a basic vocabulary of approximately 9,000 words...
Almensk is not posted on the Internet, so it is hard
to judge its qualities.
Andrew Nowicki
> If ease of pronunciation for a large percentage of the
> world population would be a consideration, only
> Japanese with a somewhat simplified phonology
> would qualify. All the others are very difficult to
> pronounce for many people, especially people in South
> East Asia.
Good point. Another advantage of Japanese is that
many of its words are compound words. On the other
hand... I cannot imagine Chinese people adopting
Japanese language as IAL.
> By the way, what happened to French? Too difficult to
> pronounce, or not popular enough?
I took data from Language Today, volume 2, 1997.
Native speakers of the most popular languages, in
millions: Mandarin Chinese = 1200, English = 330,
Spanish = 300, Hindi/Urdu = 250, Arabic = 200,
Bengali = 185, Portuguese = 160, Russian = 160,
Japanese = 125, German = 100.
French has more secondary speakers than native
speakers.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> When I look at Esperanto words, I can guess the meaning
> of a few percent of them. The rest is a mystery. When
> I look at compound Ygyde words, I can guess the meaning
> of all of them.
This is nonsense. We have already discussed this on another forum.
It is *not* possible to guess the meanings of Ygyde words. They are a
grab bag of fiat decisions on your part.
--
Paul Bartlett
PGP key info in message headers
dana.nutter
Paul O. BARTLETT wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Andrew Nowicki wrote (excerpt):
>
> > When I look at Esperanto words, I can guess the meaning
> > of a few percent of them. The rest is a mystery. When
> > I look at compound Ygyde words, I can guess the meaning
> > of all of them.
>
> This is nonsense. We have already discussed this on another
forum.
> It is *not* possible to guess the meanings of Ygyde words. They are
a
> grab bag of fiat decisions on your part.
Agreed. I've looked at Ygyde and while it's an interesting conlang, it
is definitely not well-suited for use as an IAL as the author has been
boldly claiming. I couldn't begin to guess the meanings of any of the
words or morphemes in Ygyde without considerable amounts of study. In
fact, this appears to be one of the most difficult IAL designs that
I've seen.
Johnd Fstone
> Suppose that we were going to make a new a posteriori
> conlang. How should we choose its vocabulary? Perhaps
> we should borrow it from the most popular languages.
> Mandarin Chinese words may be too difficult to pronounce,
> so the vocabulary may be borrowed proportionately from
> the remaining most popular languages: English, 19%,
> Spanish 18%, Hindi/Urdu 15%, Arabic 12%, Bengali 11%,
> Portuguese 9%, Russian 9%, and Japanese 7%.
Hindi-Urdu has twenty stop phonemes--five points of articulation,
voiced/voiceless, aspirated/unaspirated. Arabic has pharyngeal
fricatives and other "guttural" sounds. Russian has lots of consonant
clusters and unpredictable stress.
Why is Mandarin considered harder to pronounce than they are? Because
it is a tone language. It only has four tones, but lots of people
know deep down that "tone languages are hard" and so won't consider
learning even the simplest tone system.
[...]
--
personally, I've never been able to sip a drop of tea without causing
myself to vomit everything I'd eaten during the 24 preceding hours
-- Javier BF
scall...@mailexpire.com
> of a few percent of them. The rest is a mystery. When
> I look at compound Ygyde words, I can guess the meaning
> of all of them. (Maybe because I made most of them.)
Yes, maybe??? Esperanto is far more guessable for someone who is
familiar with a romance language. (Which isn't such a big deal, really)
When americans or frenchmen say 'everybody should learn our language',
it's indeed quite arrogant, since they don't appreciate the uphill
challenge it is to learn ANY language other than the one(s) you grew up
with. However, that is NOTHING to the arrogance of someone who makes up
a language of his own, and then expect others to learn it. So you want
to have an advantage on the entire world? Zamenhof got away with
wanting that. Schleyer sort of got away with it, but his arrogance got
Volapük in the end.
> Ygyde is not just another conlang but the equivalent of
> a nuclear weapon in a world of bow and arrow conlangs.
Wow! If self confidence is all it takes, we'll all be speaking Ygyde
ten years from now ;-)
Andrew Nowicki
> Why is Mandarin considered harder to pronounce than
> they are? Because it is a tone language. It only
> has four tones, but lots of people know deep down
> that "tone languages are hard" and so won't consider
> learning even the simplest tone system.
Don wrote:
> Why would you exclude Mandarin from an a posteriori
> language? I don't agree that the words are hard to
> pronounce. The grammar is also very simple. The only
> difficult thing about Mandarin is the writing, which
> one would not need to carry over into the conlang.
Maybe a tonal version of Ygyde would be better in a
sense that it would have more precise compound words?
There are two options:
Tonal words. If every compound word has 3
different tones, we can double the number of
root words. (360 instead of 180).
Tonal root words. If every root word has 3
different tones, we can triple the number
of root words. (540 instead of 180).
On the other hand, nearly all non-tonal speakers are
biased against tonal languages. Is there any way to
overcome this bias?
Andrew Nowicki
> When I look at Esperanto words, I can guess the meaning
> of a few percent of them. The rest is a mystery. When
> I look at compound Ygyde words, I can guess the meaning
> of all of them.
Paul O. BARTLETT wrote:
> This is nonsense.
This is true. I am not Paul O. BARTLETT.
Paul O. BARTLETT wrote:
> It is *not* possible to guess the meanings of Ygyde
> words. They are a grab bag of fiat decisions on your part.
If you do not like my definitions, make your own Ygyde
words, or try to improve Phonetic Picture - Writing
(www.lautbildschrift.de), or try to invent yet another
auxlang that is easy to learn. At any rate, forget
about euroclones -- they are too difficult to learn
and will be rejected for political reasons.
Andrew Nowicki
> I've looked at Ygyde and while it's an interesting
> conlang, it is definitely not well-suited for use as
> an IAL as the author has been boldly claiming. I
> couldn't begin to guess the meanings of any of the
> words or morphemes in Ygyde without considerable
> amounts of study. In fact, this appears to be one of
> the most difficult IAL designs that I've seen.
This is a vague and inaccurate statement. Anyone who
has IQ level of 100 can guess the meaning of the
following Ygyde compound words:
meat = opaby = "noun - anatomical part of a multicellular animal - food"
meter = onule = "noun distance unit"
moron = ysamupy = "noun slow mental person"
mother = ymapo = "noun feminine parent"
newton = onyle = "noun force unit"
machine oil = obujegu = "noun slippery machine liquid"
pen = odyki = "noun text rod"
pocket = ofiza = "noun garment container"
sandpaper = odyfewe = "noun sharp powder sheet"
screw = odywisu = "noun sharp helix fastener"
outer space = obage = "noun astronomical object environment"
spider = ocybo = "noun net animal"
spy = ynija = "noun secret craftsman"
sunglasses = ybejifi = "noun atmospheric optical garment"
plastic surgery = ywelici = "noun pretty medical manipulation"
electric switch = ylyka = "noun electric valve"
tape measure = onuwa = "noun distance tape"
theologian = ynaco = "noun religious expert"
topology = okone = "noun shape science"
tornado = ybewi = "noun atmospheric helix"
toy = owapusi = "noun happy child tool"
vagina = omazipa = "noun - feminine - hole - anatomical part of a multicellular animal"
to vomit = utiby = "verb outer food"
wage = onoga = "noun work money"
weapon = otaje = "noun war machine"
wedding = opomo = "noun parent fusion"
weld = ypymo = "noun burning fusion"
wood = obeky = "noun - plant - rigid solid"
Some compound Ygyde words are much more arbitrary.
Names of flora and fauna are especially hard to
guess. Some conlangers argue that a compound language
like Ygyde should have more than 180 root words to
make more precise compound words. This idea does
not appeal to me because the additional root words
would be gathering dust and the compound words would
be much longer. (You cannot squeeze more meanings
into two-letter root words than 180 unless you add
more letters to Ygyde alphabet.)
The main point of my original post is that euroclones
and their ilk are relicts of colonialism. Ygyde is
best of the rest, so it deserves a close examination.
Of course, euroclone supporters never die, they just
fade away...
scall...@mailexpire.com
a posteriori conlang cannot be universally accepted as
the international auxiliary language."
Universal acceptance faces a lot of hard problems. Agreeing on the base
for words would probably not be one of them, It seems to me that only
language tinkerers worry about that.
"A priori (artificial) conlangs have the advantage of
being politically and culturally neutral. Some of them
are better than others. At present Ygyde conlang is the
best potential international auxiliary language because
it is easy to pronounce, easy to understand, and easier
to learn than any other language. "
A bold statement, especially considering that your next line is
"Unfortunately, Ygyde is not finished yet. "
Since just about all conlangs are not finished "yet", perhaps it would
be better to wait and see? I think I'll wait until the number of fluent
speakers reaches four digits. Until then I won't trust it as viable.
scall...@mailexpire.com
for longer than esperanto, although there probably never were more than
a handful. Of course, they keep running into the same problems. An emu
is not simply a "big bird" - I see you have already run into this
problem with botanical and animal names.
Also, similar concepts are more important to distinguish than wildly
different ones. If the word for lion looks like the word for kitchen
sink, that's hardly a problem because context will usually show what
you're talking about. Mixing up words that almost, but not quite, mean
the same, can be a lot more dangerous. I suppose there are a lot of
"noun white powder" in your kitchen.
Dewey's good for libraries, not for human communication
(in much the same way that predicate logic is good for computers, not
for human communication)
As to your IQ comment, if your strategy for getting adherents is
insulting them, I think I must revise my estimates for the viability of
your language even more...
scall...@mailexpire.com
> about euroclones -- they are too difficult to learn
> and will be rejected for political reasons.
An "Euroclone" (I assume you are counting esperanto as one) has been
more successful than all others combined. Yes, the EU parliament voted
it down, but even getting it on the ballot in the first place (and
getting significant support!) was a feat no other designed language
will ever come close to making.
Political rejection is just one of a horde of problems your language
will never reach. It's a bit like worrying how the toilets should work
in your home made space shuttle.
As for the learning difficulties, you're pretty confident when speaking
about the learning difficulties of a language you got to design
yourself. I, on the other hand, don't have that privilege withe E-o and
yet I find it very easy to learn. Suprisingly, so do chinese and
japanese people - perhaps they understand better than us that language
learning is intrisically hard, since they don't have the benefit of a
large number of closely related languages like we have in the west.
Johnd Fstone
> dana.nutter wrote:
>
> > I've looked at Ygyde and while it's an interesting
> > conlang, it is definitely not well-suited for use as
> > an IAL as the author has been boldly claiming. I
> > couldn't begin to guess the meanings of any of the
> > words or morphemes in Ygyde without considerable
> > amounts of study. In fact, this appears to be one of
> > the most difficult IAL designs that I've seen.
Like any words, they can be learned as whole words, disregarding the
idiomatic compounds. But Ygyde still seems difficult, because the
words seem so similar. Also, the contrast between <y> [I] and <i> [i]
is not very international, is an asymmetry in the vowel system, and
even though the distinction exists in English, I bet even English
speakers would have trouble with it word-finally, especially since the
next word invariably starts with a vowel.
> This is a vague and inaccurate statement. Anyone who
> has IQ level of 100 can guess the meaning of the
> following Ygyde compound words:
If that's true, then I don't have an IQ of 100.
> meat = opaby = "noun - anatomical part of a multicellular animal -
> food"
Meat is flesh. This definition of meat would seem to include powdered
unicorn horn used in cooking.
> meter = onule = "noun distance unit"
I would take this to mean "distance unit". It doesn't specify the
systeme international.
> moron = ysamupy = "noun slow mental person"
Does this mean someone who learns somewhat slowly, or someone who is
mentally retarded?
> mother = ymapo = "noun feminine parent"
OK, but "female parent" might be better.
> newton = onyle = "noun force unit"
This means "force unit". And don't you think it's possible to have an
IQ of 100 or greater without studying physics?
> machine oil = obujegu = "noun slippery machine liquid"
I guess so.
> pen = odyki = "noun text rod"
Tex rod = a line of text?
> pocket = ofiza = "noun garment container"
Garment container = anything that contains a garment. A dresser
drawer. A clothes hamper.
> sandpaper = odyfewe = "noun sharp powder sheet"
I doubt many people think of powder as sharp. Powder sounds much
finer than sand.
> screw = odywisu = "noun sharp helix fastener"
I think it would take a while to puzzle this out.
> outer space = obage = "noun astronomical object environment"
OK.
> spider = ocybo = "noun net animal"
Net animal = netizen?
> spy = ynija = "noun secret craftsman"
Those secret and conspiratorial Masons!
> sunglasses = ybejifi = "noun atmospheric optical garment"
Would take a while to puzzle out.
> plastic surgery = ywelici = "noun pretty medical manipulation"
Might never be figured out. Who thinks of medical manipulation
*itself* as pretty?
> electric switch = ylyka = "noun electric valve"
Electric valve = vacuum tube?
> tape measure = onuwa = "noun distance tape"
OK.
> theologian = ynaco = "noun religious expert"
I guess that depends on what expert means.
> topology = okone = "noun shape science"
Shape science = morphology?
> tornado = ybewi = "noun atmospheric helix"
I don't think that's obvious. The phrase "atmospheric helix" might
sound like something invisible and mysterious in the air that only
scientists know about.
> toy = owapusi = "noun happy child tool"
Happy child tool = Prozac?
> vagina = omazipa = "noun - feminine - hole - anatomical part of a
> multicellular animal"
Yeah. Even if you have an IQ of 100+, you might have to think "How
about nostrils? No, men have those, too." but eventually you'd come
around to the vagina.
> to vomit = utiby = "verb outer food"
Yeah, I guess urine and feces aren't food anymore. (But "food from
dogs" is still a funny phrase.)
> wage = onoga = "noun work money"
OK.
> weapon = otaje = "noun war machine"
But weapons can exist without war. I don't see why war should get its
own morpheme and weapon shouldn't.
> wedding = opomo = "noun parent fusion"
But partners in marriage aren't necessarily parents, any more than are
partners in the "fusion" called sexual intercourse.
> weld = ypymo = "noun burning fusion"
Not obvious.
> wood = obeky = "noun - plant - rigid solid"
Not obvious and I don't want to think about it anymore.
[...]
--
You're a Waldorf salad. -- Cole Porter
Andrew Nowicki
that they are not cute.
Lilipu (http://ca.geocities.com/vixcafe/lilipu/vocab.html)
and Toki Pona (http://www.tokipona.org/nimi.html)
are cute because they sound soft.
Examples of Lilipu words: vumu, muvu, pava, kulu.
Examples of Toki Pona words: akesi, ali, jaki, nimi.
Lilipu sounds exceptionally well because its
alphabet has only 3 vowels and 5 consonants:
a, i, u, k, p, m, l, v.
Phonetic Picture - Writing is cute because its
pictures look cute.
All these cute conlangs were made very recently,
are far from complete, and yet they are just as
popular as much older and more complete conlangs.
(Here is the list of the most popular conlangs:
http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_pop100_2004.htm)
The popularity of Lilipu, Toki Pona, and Phonetic
Picture - Writing proves that cuteness does matter.
It would take linguistic genius to figure out
how to make large vocabulary of compound words
that are short and sound cute. If you make random
words rather than compound words the task is much
easier.
Lilipu has a "syllabary"
(http://ca.geocities.com/vixcafe/lilipu/syllabary.html)
made of 3x6=18 syllables. At present the longest
Lilipu words have 3 syllables. All its words are random,
so there is a maximum of 18^3=5832 words made of
3 syllables. The practicable maximum may be smaller
to avoid words that sound alike. Lilipu vocabulary
has 1600 words. If its vocabulary could grow to
about 20,000 words, Lilipu would probably kill all
euroclones in one generation. Unfortunately, such
a big vocabulary would require long, 4-syllable
words, which are not cute.
Phonetic Picture - Writing is a perfect way to
describe simple things, but it fails to describe
complex ideas. So far it has no verbs, adjectives,
tenses, of prepositions. How could someone define
verb "to lubricate" in Phonetic Picture - Writing?
It would probably take a picture of a cogwheel, a
picture of a bottle, and a hint that this is a
verb rather than a noun or an adjective.
Suppose that cogwheel = kifipisi, and that
bottle = omimikineje, and that it takes one more
letter to indicate the verb. The verb "to lubricate"
has 20 letters! Now let us compare it with Ygyde:
to lubricate = ubugu = "verb slippery liquid"
Only 5 letters and its meaning is more obvious!
As you can see, these cute conlangs cannot aspire
to the auxlang status, but they are interesting
in a sense that they may inspire open minded
auxlangers.
ARE THERE ANY OPEN MINDED AUXLANGERS HERE???
Andrew Nowicki
> Like any words, they can be learned as whole words,
> disregarding the idiomatic compounds. But Ygyde
> still seems difficult, because the words seem so similar.
They may seem similar because most nouns begin with
letter "y," which sounds strange to English speaker.
This is a matter of cuteness and can be solved by
changing Short Ygyde so that the leading y in
compound words is optional. This change would upset
proper names and variables, which at present
begin with consonants.
Examples of changed words:
Standard Ygyde == Short Ygyde
book = ydedi == dedi = "noun big publication"
boulder = ydebafa == debafa = "noun big geological ball"
brain = ymupa == mupa = "noun mental anatomical..."
bribe = yniga == niga = "noun secret money"
> Also, the contrast between <y> [I] and <i> [i]
> is not very international...
I agree. This is why I invented Long Ygyde.
Long Ygyde is described in the main Ygyde file
(http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyde.htm).
It has only 13 letters: a u i b p d t g k w s m l.
Rex F. May
scall...@mailexpire.com at scall...@mailexpire.com wrote on 12/21/04
8:27 AM:
Ceqli, now, is a good hard pie in the face.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> [...]
> ARE THERE ANY OPEN MINDED AUXLANGERS HERE???
Yes. Probably many of them. People may disagree with you and
still be openminded.
David Wolff
Andrew Nowicki <and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> dana.nutter wrote:
>
>> I've looked at Ygyde and while it's an interesting
>> conlang, it is definitely not well-suited for use as
>> an IAL as the author has been boldly claiming. I
>> couldn't begin to guess the meanings of any of the
>> words or morphemes in Ygyde without considerable
>> amounts of study. In fact, this appears to be one of
>> the most difficult IAL designs that I've seen.
>
> This is a vague and inaccurate statement. Anyone who
> has IQ level of 100 can guess the meaning of the
> following Ygyde compound words:
Oooh! Let me try. I'm deleting the English translation since then it's
too obvious what the Ygyde word means:
> = opaby = "noun - anatomical part of a multicellular animal - food"
"Oh baby": a term of endearment
> = onule = "noun distance unit"
"On yule": Season's greetings
> = ysamupy = "noun slow mental person"
"Why Sam uppy": explain Sam's exuberant mood
> = ymapo = "noun feminine parent"
"I'm a PO": I've become a mail delivery person
> = onyle = "noun force unit"
"O nile": big river
> = obujegu = "noun slippery machine liquid"
This one is just a typo.
> = odyki = "noun text rod"
"O dykey": like a big river barrier
This *is* obvious! And *fun*!
Death to spammers --
David
(Remove "xx" to reply.)
Rex F. May
bart...@smart.net wrote on 12/22/04 5:30 PM:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>> ARE THERE ANY OPEN MINDED AUXLANGERS HERE???
>
> Yes. Probably many of them. People may disagree with you and
> still be openminded.
Me! Me! I'm openminded!
Johnd Fstone
I'm openminded, but I'm not an auxlanger.
--
But I forgot to tell you the MAIN ingredient is her own menstrual
blood, and both she and the snake REALLY dig it. -- Abigail
Steve Cross
> weapon = otaje = "noun war machine"
Tank? Fighter aircraft? H-bomb?
Steve Cross, artlanger
Andrew Nowicki
> ARE THERE ANY OPEN MINDED AUXLANGERS HERE???
Paul O. BARTLETT wrote:
> Yes. Probably many of them...
They have not demonstrated their open mindedness
or creativity in this thread. Auxlangers should
have been been linguistic inventors who use the
Internet to borrow ideas from each other.
Unfortunately, most of those who call themselves
auxlangers are not inventors of languages but
rather linguistic cheerleaders and warriors.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
> > ARE THERE ANY OPEN MINDED AUXLANGERS HERE???
>
> Paul O. BARTLETT wrote:
>
> > Yes. Probably many of them...
>
> They have not demonstrated their open mindedness
> or creativity in this thread.
Why is it that those who disagree with you are somehow not
openminded? So far, on this newsgroup or on the AUXLANG list, I do
not recall reading any message speaking well about Ygyde except from
you yourself. People disagree with you about your language. That does
not mean that they are closeminded.
> Auxlangers should
> have been been linguistic inventors who use the
> Internet to borrow ideas from each other. [...]
Some of those who frequent auxlang circles may already have a
chosen auxlang, and they come here for other reasons than to invent
something. I one time took an earlier auxlang proposal and modified
it. Does that meet your specifications of what an auxlanger is?
Andrew Nowicki
> Why is it that those who disagree with you are somehow not
> openminded? So far, on this newsgroup or on the AUXLANG list, I do
> not recall reading any message speaking well about Ygyde except from
> you yourself. People disagree with you about your language. That does
> not mean that they are closeminded.
Forget Ygyde!
The problem is that we are not talking about
inventing and improving auxlangs. When scientists
talk about science they exchange ideas. When
auxlangers talk about auxlangs, they exchange
insults.
I have been following this newsgroup for several
years, but I have never seen anyone say:
"Let us make a new auxlang by combining the
best features of auxlang X, auxlang Y, and
auxlang Z."
You sound like another auxlang warrior. So far
you have not contributed any original ideas to
this thread.
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> dana.nutter wrote:
>
> > I've looked at Ygyde and while it's an interesting
> > conlang, it is definitely not well-suited for use as
> > an IAL as the author has been boldly claiming. I
> > couldn't begin to guess the meanings of any of the
> > words or morphemes in Ygyde without considerable
> > amounts of study. In fact, this appears to be one of
> > the most difficult IAL designs that I've seen.
>
> This is a vague and inaccurate statement. Anyone who
> has IQ level of 100 can guess the meaning of the
> following Ygyde compound words:
Personal attacks won't win you any friends, and IQ has nothing
to do with it. Your morphemes are completely foreign to
everyone and therefore unrecognizable whether alone or
compounded into long multisyllable words.
> meat = opaby = "noun - anatomical part of a multicellular animal - food"
Which anatomical part? Most people don't consider all
"anotomical parts" as "food". Vegetarians don't even consider
animals as food.
> meter = onule = "noun distance unit"
"distance unit", In what measuring system?
> moron = ysamupy = "noun slow mental person"
"slow" = (idomatic usage). Slow/fast could also be dim/bright.
> mother = ymapo = "noun feminine parent"
> newton = onyle = "noun force unit"
Again, what measuring systems? "PSI" could also be a "force
unit"
> machine oil = obujegu = "noun slippery machine liquid"
How about "lubricating liquid", or just "lubricant".
> pen = odyki = "noun text rod"
"text rod!" Who would guess that one? Why not "writing
instrument".
> pocket = ofiza = "noun garment container"
"garment container" would lead me to think of a closet,
suitcase, or something that holds clothing, not a pocket.
> sandpaper = odyfewe = "noun sharp powder sheet"
"sand" + "paper" works out well. "sharp powder" doesn't
necessarily mean "sand".
> screw = odywisu = "noun sharp helix fastener"
Another one I doubt anyone would guess
> outer space = obage = "noun astronomical object environment"
"astronomical object": a planet? a spaceship? The environment
in the International Space Station?
> spider = ocybo = "noun net animal"
A big stretch to use "animal" when describing a creature such as
a spider.
> spy = ynija = "noun secret craftsman"
"craftsman?" What is he crafting?
> sunglasses = ybejifi = "noun atmospheric optical garment"
Since when do glasses qualify as a "garment". Why not something
like "sun protection eye glass"
> plastic surgery = ywelici = "noun pretty medical manipulation"
Okay this does make some sense.
> electric switch = ylyka = "noun electric valve"
"valve?" That would lead me to think more along the lines of a
volume control knob, not a switch.
> tape measure = onuwa = "noun distance tape"
Makes some sense, but it would make more sense to say "measure
tape" to denote the action is performs.
> theologian = ynaco = "noun religious expert"
Why not "religion science person" or "religious scientist".
> topology = okone = "noun shape science"
"shape science": geometry?
> tornado = ybewi = "noun atmospheric helix"
Better alternatives: "wind funnel", "twisting wind", "spinning
air", etc.
> toy = owapusi = "noun happy child tool"
Adults have "toys" tool. Why not "play thing".
> vagina = omazipa = "noun - feminine - hole - anatomical part of a multicellular animal"
Makes some sense, but could probably be made better.
> to vomit = utiby = "verb outer food"
"Vomit" would not come to mind from "outer food". "Shit" would
more likely be the first thought, although this could also
include food sitting on a plate that hasn't been eaten yet.
> wage = onoga = "noun work money"
"payment" is enough?
> weapon = otaje = "noun war machine"
"war machine" = tanks, missiles, etc. What about things like
knives and swords which are also weapons? How about something
more to the point: "assault tool", "killing thing", etc.
> wedding = opomo = "noun parent fusion"
People can be parents without being married, and can get married
without having offspring. In most cultures, this is a
reliigously based institution. Some more like "holy male-female
union" would probably be more understandable.
> weld = ypymo = "noun burning fusion"
Or maybe "metal fusion", etc.
> wood = obeky = "noun - plant - rigid solid"
"plant rigid solid" would make me think "tree", not "wood".
"tree material" maybe could be "wood".
The fact that you must explain each of these words only
demonstrates my point. NOBODY but you, the creator, knows
what any of your morphemes stand for, therefore they are not
recognizable to anyone but you.
> ...
------------------------------
Dana Nutter
SASXSEK RATIS.
http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek
Dana Nutter
> Philosophical language adherents never die either, they've been around
> for longer than esperanto, although there probably never were more than
> a handful. Of course, they keep running into the same problems. An emu
> is not simply a "big bird" - I see you have already run into this
> problem with botanical and animal names.
> Also, similar concepts are more important to distinguish than wildly
> different ones. If the word for lion looks like the word for kitchen
> sink, that's hardly a problem because context will usually show what
> you're talking about. Mixing up words that almost, but not quite, mean
> the same, can be a lot more dangerous. I suppose there are a lot of
> "noun white powder" in your kitchen.
>
> Dewey's good for libraries, not for human communication
> (in much the same way that predicate logic is good for computers, not
> for human communication)
>
Very well stated. Also is must be noted that certain items are
so much a part of everyday life that a long compound word is
often impractical. Words like "automobile" may make sense, but
those 4 syllables are a mouthful and many languages reduce it
down to just "auto", or have another word such as "car".
Dana Nutter
wrote:
> Andrew Nowicki <and...@nospam.com> writes:
>
> > dana.nutter wrote:
> >
> > > I've looked at Ygyde and while it's an interesting
> > > conlang, it is definitely not well-suited for use as
> > > an IAL as the author has been boldly claiming. I
> > > couldn't begin to guess the meanings of any of the
> > > words or morphemes in Ygyde without considerable
> > > amounts of study. In fact, this appears to be one of
> > > the most difficult IAL designs that I've seen.
>
> Like any words, they can be learned as whole words, disregarding the
> idiomatic compounds. But Ygyde still seems difficult, because the
> words seem so similar. Also, the contrast between <y> [I] and <i> [i]
> is not very international, is an asymmetry in the vowel system, and
> even though the distinction exists in English, I bet even English
> speakers would have trouble with it word-finally, especially since the
> next word invariably starts with a vowel.
As a final [I] would become [i] in most dialects, in a few it
may even become [@]. Some English speaker also have trouble
distinguishing [E] from [I] so that words like <pen> and <pin>
are sometimes confused.
> Those secret and conspiratorial Masons!
Or Skull & Bones!
> Shape science = morphology?
I would have guessed geometry.
> Happy child tool = Prozac?
No, Ritalin. Or would that be "happy parent tool"?
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Johnd Fstone wrote:
>
> > Like any words, they can be learned as whole words,
> > disregarding the idiomatic compounds. But Ygyde
> > still seems difficult, because the words seem so similar.
>
> They may seem similar because most nouns begin with
> letter "y," which sounds strange to English speaker.
> This is a matter of cuteness and can be solved by
> changing Short Ygyde so that the leading y in
> compound words is optional. This change would upset
> proper names and variables, which at present
> begin with consonants.
> ...
It's not the initial "y", it's the monotonous list of CV
morphemes.
> > Also, the contrast between <y> [I] and <i> [i]
> > is not very international...
>
> I agree. This is why I invented Long Ygyde.
> Long Ygyde is described in the main Ygyde file
> (http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyde.htm).
> It has only 13 letters: a u i b p d t g k w s m l.
Okay so now there are two sets of rules to learn.
Dana Nutter
> Johnd Fstone wrote:
>
> On the other hand, nearly all non-tonal speakers are
> biased against tonal languages. Is there any way to
> overcome this bias?
I don't know. I'm tone deaf.
Dana Nutter
> "This political problem is so severe that
> a posteriori conlang cannot be universally accepted as
> the international auxiliary language."
>
> Universal acceptance faces a lot of hard problems. Agreeing on the base
> for words would probably not be one of them, It seems to me that only
> language tinkerers worry about that.
This is where you have to ask the question "why does someone
learn a language, any language?". The answer is usually pretty
simple: "To be able to communicate with others." Not many will
learn a language that nobody else speaks. This is why English
already is the chosen IAL of the world. People learn it because
it's what everyone else is learning too. The momentum has been
started and it is accelerating rapidly. The more speakers
gained, the more incentive others have to use it.
> Since just about all conlangs are not finished "yet", perhaps it would
> be better to wait and see? I think I'll wait until the number of fluent
> speakers reaches four digits. Until then I won't trust it as viable.
I don't see any of the, regardless of how well designed,
becoming anything more than what they are now, hobbies for
linguists and language enthuiasts. Even with political backing,
there still may be public resistance, just as there is with some
natural languages.
Dana Nutter
Open mindedness has nothing to do with whether they like your
creation or not. Many here have offered constructive criticism
to you but your closed mind has rejected it.
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Paul O. BARTLETT" wrote:
>
> > Why is it that those who disagree with you are somehow not
> > openminded? So far, on this newsgroup or on the AUXLANG list, I do
> > not recall reading any message speaking well about Ygyde except from
> > you yourself. People disagree with you about your language. That does
> > not mean that they are closeminded.
>
> Forget Ygyde!
>
> The problem is that we are not talking about
> inventing and improving auxlangs. When scientists
> talk about science they exchange ideas. When
> auxlangers talk about auxlangs, they exchange
> insults.
Who says scientists don't do this?
So far the only insults I've seen here are your own references
to the IQ level of those who don't understand Ygyde (the rest of
the world, or calling us "closed minded" when offering some
constructive advice.
> I have been following this newsgroup for several
> years, but I have never seen anyone say:
> "Let us make a new auxlang by combining the
> best features of auxlang X, auxlang Y, and
> auxlang Z."
There are collaborative projects like that, but they just don't
use this list much.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> [trimmed for space]
> Forget Ygyde!
If you wish. :)
> When
> auxlangers talk about auxlangs, they exchange
> insults.
The insults seem to be coming mostly from you, not from others.
> I have been following this newsgroup for several
> years, but I have never seen anyone say:
> "Let us make a new auxlang by combining the
> best features of auxlang X, auxlang Y, and
> auxlang Z."
As another person (was it Dana Nutter?) has already pointed out,
there have been and are collaborative projects for developing auxiliary
languages. The developers just do not hang out around here. So far as
I know, some of them are active on YahooGroups. This forum (and
AUXLANG, for that matter) is hardly all of the auxlang development
world.
> You sound like another auxlang warrior. So far
> you have not contributed any original ideas to
> this thread.
Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere. Sometimes method itself is a
legitimate matter for discussion, as well as the subject to which the
method is applied.
Dana Nutter
<bart...@smart.net> wrote:
> As another person (was it Dana Nutter?) has already pointed out,
> there have been and are collaborative projects for developing auxiliary
> languages. The developers just do not hang out around here. So far as
> I know, some of them are active on YahooGroups. This forum (and
> AUXLANG, for that matter) is hardly all of the auxlang development
> world.
Yes, there are some on Yahoo. The ones that I have joined up
with seem to be dormant right now. These too have some issues
that I've noticed. One has to do with the "too many chefs"
theory resulting in a strange mix of everyone's ideas and no
defined goals, or any real visionary to guide the process
. The other has to do with the fact that there is a tendency to
debate every minor point to infinity so that nothing ever is
accomplished.
Andrew Nowicki
> pocket = ofiza = "noun garment container"
Johnd Fstone wrote:
> Garment container = anything that contains
> a garment. A dresser drawer. A clothes hamper.
It is difficult to make perfect compound words
in any language, especially when the word
describes a complex thing or idea. Compound
words are present in the English language.
If you have never heard the words gunman and
journeyman, you would probably believe that
gunman means gunsmith and journeyman means
a tourist who likes to travel. These English
compound words are not precise. Does it mean
that the English language will be improved
by replacing these words with non-compound
words? For example, if we replace gunman with
"pangi" and "journeyman" with "temela" will
these new non-compound words be easier to
remember than the standard compound words?
I don't think so. In my opinion an imperfect
compound word is better than an arbitrary word.
If you do not understand the meaning of gunman
and journeyman, you at least know that these
words describe persons. If you do not understand
the meaning of ofiza, you at least know that it
is some kind of a container.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> It's not the initial "y", it's the monotonous
> list of CV morphemes.
What you call monotonous I call structured and
predictable. Ygyde has to be structured and
predictable to be easy to understand.
As we already explained in this thread, borrowing
vocabulary from existing languages is a bad idea.
Even if you overcome political problems, you will
create a vocabulary that is not optimal from the
linguistic point of view. This means that the
auxlang vocabulary must be artificial (a priori).
There are two ways to make the a priori vocabulary:
- Make non-compound, cute words (similar to Lilipu
http://ca.geocities.com/vixcafe/lilipu/vocab.html).
- Make compound words so that the vocabulary is
easy to learn.
Of course, it would be desirable to make the
vocabulary from words which sound cute and are
compound words, but this task seems impossible.
Most 3-letter long 5-letter long Ygyde words sound
cute, but some 7-letter long words sound like a
staccato.
Dana Nutter
Idiomatic expressions and compounds are just as difficult to
learn as a separate word because the result is something other
than a sum of the parts. As you have mentioned with words like
"journeyman" where the meaning is something different from its
parts. "Gunman" on the other hand could be interpreted as you
mentioned, but its normal usage (=man with gun) still makes some
sense even though it's ambiguous, so a word like "shooter" would
be more appropriate. In both case their usage must be learned
alone, regardless of whether you know what the individual parts
mean.
> Dana Nutter wrote:
>
> > It's not the initial "y", it's the monotonous
> > list of CV morphemes.
>
> What you call monotonous I call structured and
> predictable. Ygyde has to be structured and
> predictable to be easy to understand.
>
> As we already explained in this thread, borrowing
> vocabulary from existing languages is a bad idea.
> Even if you overcome political problems, you will
> create a vocabulary that is not optimal from the
> linguistic point of view. This means that the
> auxlang vocabulary must be artificial (a priori).
> There are two ways to make the a priori vocabulary:
> - Make non-compound, cute words (similar to Lilipu
> http://ca.geocities.com/vixcafe/lilipu/vocab.html).
> - Make compound words so that the vocabulary is
> easy to learn.
> Of course, it would be desirable to make the
> vocabulary from words which sound cute and are
> compound words, but this task seems impossible.
> Most 3-letter long 5-letter long Ygyde words sound
> cute, but some 7-letter long words sound like a
> staccato.
Structure and regularity are important for an auxlang, however
so is the ability to easily learn the language as a whole.
Otherwise there's no point in using an auxlang. Monotony will
only put the learners to sleep.
"Cute" words may or may not help however beauty is the in eye of
the beholder so what you call "cute" isn't necessarily what
someone else calls "cute". Examples from ultrasimplistic
languages like Toki Pona and Lilipu really don't crossover well
into IAL's because they are only concepts and not practical
languages. Toki Pona however DOES derive its vocabulary from
real words: Toki < eng. "talk", Pona < lat. "Bona".
The use of roots and vocabulary from existing languages may or
may not help the learner, but it can't hurt. Even if a student
only recognizes a few words, that still shaves SOME time and
effort from the learning curve rather than forcing every student
to learn every single word from scratch.
While I'm not a really big fan of Esperanto, I must admit that Z
did a pretty good job given the time, place and circumstances.
It may be Eurocentric, but I doubt Z had much access to
reference material for anything but the major European
languages. The result was a language which is fairly easy to
pick up on because many students already have a head start on
the vocabulary. The grammar isn't completely regular, but is
still more regular than the natural languages it draws from.
While I'm not fluent in Esperanto, I can usually read it and
understand a good portion of what I'm reading, and even write it
to some extent. Not bad considering that the only real study I
had was from a small pamphlet I found many years ago called
Teach Yourself Esperanto. I've also been able to read
Interlingua without much trouble even though I've had no
instruction whatsoever. On the other hand, I would imaging that
speakers or Asian or African languages would probably find
Esperanto almost as difficult as the natural languages of
Europe.
The idea of something that is "politically neutral" is an
unrealistic fantasy. Many design decisions are going to favor
one group or another so there is no way to create something
that's going to satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time.
Kevin Bowman
> The idea of something that is "politically neutral" is an
> unrealistic fantasy. Many design decisions are going to favor
> one group or another so there is no way to create something
> that's going to satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time.
That's precisely why I like Interlingua so much. There's no
politically sound way to cater to the linguistic persuasions of the
entire world, so use a language that is familiar (if not native) to
some of the most politically influential parts of the world, and a
language stemming from the most prestigious classical language which
has already pervaded the vocabularies of so many modern languages. As
for the rest of the world, well, when China gets out of its rut and
takes over, we can all happily switch right over to Mandarin.
Of course, if you want to go completely by political sway, then we can
just stick with English. Interlingua just has the virtue of being a
little easier to pronounce and spell over English, and gives our
Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese neighbors a friendly head
start.
Dana Nutter
<kex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dana Nutter wrote:
> > The idea of something that is "politically neutral" is an
> > unrealistic fantasy. Many design decisions are going to favor
> > one group or another so there is no way to create something
> > that's going to satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time.
>
> That's precisely why I like Interlingua so much. There's no
> politically sound way to cater to the linguistic persuasions of the
> entire world, so use a language that is familiar (if not native) to
> some of the most politically influential parts of the world, and a
> language stemming from the most prestigious classical language which
> has already pervaded the vocabularies of so many modern languages. As
> for the rest of the world, well, when China gets out of its rut and
> takes over, we can all happily switch right over to Mandarin.
Except that many Chinese are now learning English. The trend
toward an English speaking world is fairly strong. Latin
America seems to be the only part of the world where English
isn't spreading quickly.
> Of course, if you want to go completely by political sway, then we can
> just stick with English. Interlingua just has the virtue of being a
> little easier to pronounce and spell over English, and gives our
> Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese neighbors a friendly head
> start.
The ball is already rolling for English and the momentum is too
strong to stop it anytime woon. Just look at how long much
influence and endurance Latin has had, even after the Roman
Empire fell. English is in a much stronger position than that
now and is only growing stronger over time, although it too
still carries a large lexicon of word derived from Latin.
Andrew Nowicki
> That's precisely why I like Interlingua so much. There's no
> politically sound way to cater to the linguistic persuasions of the
> entire world, so use a language that is familiar (if not native) to
> some of the most politically influential parts of the world, and a
> language stemming from the most prestigious classical language which
> has already pervaded the vocabularies of so many modern languages. As
> for the rest of the world, well, when China gets out of its rut and
> takes over, we can all happily switch right over to Mandarin.
China is not in the rut. Its economy is growing fast
while U.S. is in decline. There is already great demand
for Mandarin translators in places where there are few
native Mandarin speakers.
"China's red-hot economy, now the sixth biggest in the
world and likely the fourth biggest in two years time,
is gobbling up ever greater amounts of the world's raw
materials to sustain its blistering industrial growth.
It now consumes a quarter of the world's steel,
a third of its oil and half of its cement, eclipsing
the United States as the primary engine of global
growth in the past two years."
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4998208/
> Of course, if you want to go completely by political sway, then we can
> just stick with English. Interlingua just has the virtue of being a
> little easier to pronounce and spell over English, and gives our
> Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese neighbors a friendly head
> start.
Auxlangs have simple, easy to learn grammar. Nearly
all the effort to learn an auxlang goes into learning
its vocabulary. This is why auxlang vocabulary is far
more important than its grammar.
Some spoken languages do not have european phonemes.
For example, Arabic language has only 3 vowels: a, i, u.
A perfect auxlang should be easy to pronounce for
everyone, which means that it should have very few
phonemes. This is a big problem because it means that
many of its words are very long. Ygyde solves this
problem by having three versions called Short Ygyde,
Standard Ygyde, and Long Ygyde. Long Ygyde has only 13
phonemes: a u i b p d t g k w(=v) s m l. Its words are
long (5 to 10 letters long) and ugly. Translation
from one Ygyde version to another Ygyde version is
trivial.
It is hard to beat English. Maybe a simplified form
of English would have a chance? English, Ceqli,
Interlingua, Mondlango (Ulango) and many other
euroclones have the "r" phoneme, which is very
difficult to learn.
An artificial IAL cannot compete with the major
spoken languages head on, but it can supplant them
as a means of making new compound words. For example,
the word LASER is an acronym from "Light Amplification
by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." Ygyde word for
laser beam is YDOGY = "noun narrow light." YDOGY is
easier to memorize and easier to pronounce than LASER.
Andrew Nowicki
not fade away completely because they borrowed
important ideas from one another, and because many
modern languages borrowed these ideas from them.
The first greek accountants borrowed pictograms from
Crete. This system of writing was called Linear B.
When Dorian invasion destroyed the greek civilization
around 1200 b. c. nobody knew how to use the pictograms.
Rather than re-learning the stupid pictograms Greeks
borrowed the phoenician alphabet and changed the meaning
of some phoenician consonants -- these consonants became
vowels. (There were no vowels in Phoenician.) Greeks also
invented 5 new letters and changed the direction of
writing (from left to right). The original greek alphabet
had 24 letters; all of them were capital letters. There
were no spaces between the greek words. Romans borrowed
the greek alphabet and gave it the modern look. In 12th
century Europeans borrowed numerals from Indians via
Arabs.
These linguistic inventions are much more durable
than languages which adopted them first. Each invention
encountered resistance. For example, pictogram writers
had phonetic alphabet, but they preferred to use
pictograms probably to save clay tablets. (Pictograms
are more concise than phonetic letters.)
The last linguistic invention that has not proliferated
yet are compound words. To the best of my knowledge
Japanese language is the only natural language which
abounds with compound words. My own experiments with Ebubo
and Ygyde indicate that this invention can reduce the
effort to learn the vocabulary of the auxlang. I would
rather argue about compound words than about euroclones
because all arguments about euroclone vocabularies are
political.
_______________________________________________________
New Ygyde words:
gunman = osukupy = "noun dangerous tube person"
journeyman = ocoja = "noun expert craftsman"
Rex F. May
> Some spoken languages do not have european phonemes.
> For example, Arabic language has only 3 vowels: a, i, u.
symbols, or perhaps that it only has three vowel phonemes, which is
debatable.
Kevin Bowman
> For example, Arabic language has only 3 vowels: a, i, u.
I meant my previous post to be an argument for politics over
practicality. If only Europeans can pronounce anything, then that's
tough luck for the rest of the world, I guess.
> A perfect auxlang should be easy to pronounce for
> everyone, which means that it should have very few
> phonemes. This is a big problem because it means that
> many of its words are very long. Ygyde solves this
> problem by having three versions called Short Ygyde,
> Standard Ygyde, and Long Ygyde. Long Ygyde has only 13
> phonemes: a u i b p d t g k w(=v) s m l. Its words are
> long (5 to 10 letters long) and ugly. Translation
> from one Ygyde version to another Ygyde version is
> trivial.
In essence, the learning process becomes overcomplicated. If your
argument is for universal pronounceability, then simply abandon
Short/Standard Ygyde, since they are exclusive to speakers of languages
with phonemic paucity.
If, however, you wish not to alienate the Hawaiians, you may wish also
to disclude b, d, t, g, and s from Long Ygyde.
> An artificial IAL cannot compete with the major
> spoken languages head on, but it can supplant them
> as a means of making new compound words. For example,
> the word LASER is an acronym from "Light Amplification
> by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." Ygyde word for
> laser beam is YDOGY = "noun narrow light." YDOGY is
> easier to memorize and easier to pronounce than LASER.
Coincidentally, if anyone ever asked me what that shiny red beam was, I
might accidentally call it an Ygyde! Confusing!
My Hotmail account gets a lot of spam mails from Korea with Ygyde words
in the subject line. Take heart: your supplanting process has already
taken hold!
Bob LeChevalier
>Some spoken languages do not have european phonemes.
All languages have many European phonemes. Some have more of them,
some have fewer. Pirah~a has only 10 or 11 phonemes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%E3_language
while Ubykh has 83 consonants and 2 or 3 phonemic vowels (but 10
phonetic vowels)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubykh_language
but only has 7 of the phonemes in Pirah~a.
>For example, Arabic language has only 3 vowels: a, i, u.
Wrong. At least 6:
http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/nl-ipa/arabicipa.html
and as you can see, 25 consonants.
>For example,
>the word LASER is an acronym from "Light Amplification
>by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." Ygyde word for
>laser beam is YDOGY = "noun narrow light." YDOGY is
>easier to memorize and easier to pronounce than LASER.
A claim entirely without any support other than your own author-biased
views.
Lojban would do "narrow-light" as jakygu'i, and it wouldn't be limited
to the noun but could also be a verb, be used to identify the
frequency and intensity, the target, etc. all with the same word. I
think it is easier to say than "YDOGY", easier to memorize (or
reinvent on the fly - but you don't have to - laser could be
stimulated-light fragu'i or intense-light camgu'i or regular-light
dikygu'i depending on aspect what you want to emphasize, or all of the
above: fradikcamgu'i), and far more useful; but I know that I'm biased
and wouldn't assume that this claim would be true for others (though
there are far more Lojban speakers and writers than Ygyde speakers).
I'm sure I won't remember the Ygyde word tomorrow; indeed I seldom
even remember the exact name of the language when I'm away from the
computer, and I've been reading that name for who knows how long.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Andrew Nowicki
> In essence, the learning process becomes overcomplicated. If your
> argument is for universal pronounceability, then simply abandon
> Short/Standard Ygyde, since they are exclusive to speakers of languages
> with phonemic paucity.
The problem with Long Ygyde is that its words are
long and they do not sound cute. The additional
complexity of having 3 versions of Ygyde is moderate;
it is just a matter of learning another table with
90 entries, most of them redundant. If someone cannot
pronounce just one phoneme of the Short/Standard
Ygyde, he can speak with a mixture of syllables,
most of them taken from the Standard Ygyde, and a
few taken from the Long Ygyde. If you do not know
if others understand all Short/Standard Ygyde
phonemes, you have to speak Long Ygyde.
> If, however, you wish not to alienate the Hawaiians, you may wish also
> to disclude b, d, t, g, and s from Long Ygyde.
Good point. It may turn out that the total number of
phonemes which everyone can pronounce is zero. My
favorite solution is to bundle the phonemes into
11 groups of 2 or 3 similar phonemes:
1. a, e
2. u, o
3. i, y
4. b, p
5. d, t
6. g, k
7. w(=v), f
8. z, s, h
9. j, c(=ch)
10. m, n
11. l
This universal alphabet would have 3 vowels
(1, 2, 3) and 8 consonants (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).
It would not work with Hawaiian speakers, because
their language has neither j nor c(=ch)
Hawaiian language has five vowels (a, e, i, o, u)
and eight consonants (h, k, l, m, n, p, w) including
the `okina or glottal stop.
Hawaiians speak some English, so this problem is not
real. They can pronounce j and c(=ch).
A more real problem is how to cope with the very small
number of phonemes. Long Ygyde has 10 consonants. If
we take away 2 consonants, we take away 18 syllables,
so we have to invent 18 new syllables, probably by
combining letter "l" with consonants. It is doable.
Andrew Nowicki
> For example, Arabic language has only 3 vowels: a, i, u.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Wrong. At least 6:
> http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/nl-ipa/arabicipa.html
> and as you can see, 25 consonants.
I am glad you joined the thread! We can always
learn something from your posts even if we do
not agree on everything.
I do not speak Arabic but Encyclopedia Britannica
and a few web pages that I have seen mention only
3 short a, i, u vowels and 3 long a, i, u vowels.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> For example,
> the word LASER is an acronym from "Light Amplification
> by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." Ygyde word for
> laser beam is YDOGY = "noun narrow light." YDOGY is
> easier to memorize and easier to pronounce than LASER.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> A claim entirely without any support other than your
> own author-biased views.
Letter "r" is very difficult to learn.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Lojban would do "narrow-light" as jakygu'i, and it wouldn't be limited
> to the noun but could also be a verb...
I could not find "jakygu" in Lojban dictionary,
only "gusni." Beam is "nenli'i" or "nejni."
> English/Lojban Dictionary - First draft official publication 26 September 1994
> Copyright 1994, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
> Bob LeChevalier, President loj...@access.digex.net
> 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
By the way, why is your dictionary so complex?
It seems that rules to make compound words (lujvo)
are very complex also.
Ygyde can also easily derive verbs and adjectives
from nouns. For example:
laser beam = ydogy = "noun narrow light"
to laser beam?, to aim laser beam? = udogy = "verb narrow light"
laser-like beam = adogy = "adjective narrow light"
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> ...be used to identify the frequency and intensity,
> the target, etc. all with the same word.
Sounds interesting but rather vague. Are these words
long-winded jaw breakers?
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> I think it [jakygu'i] is easier to say than "YDOGY"
I doubt it.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> ..easier to memorize (or reinvent on the fly...
About the same...
> - but you don't have to - laser could be
> stimulated-light fragu'i or intense-light camgu'i or regular-light
> dikygu'i depending on aspect what you want to emphasize, or all of the
> above: fradikcamgu'i),
I could not find "fragu" and "dikygu" in the Lojban
dictionary. "Fradikcamgu'i" looks like a jaw breaker.
Ygyde has fewer (180) root words than Lojban (1350),
but its roots are very short (2 letters), so they
are well suited for making compound words. It is
impossible to make "stimulated-light" and "intense-light"
compound words in Ygyde because there are no root
words for "stimulated" or "intense." Perhaps Ygyde
root "py=burning" could be used instead of "intense."
The best substitutes for "stimulated" are Ygyde roots
"co=changing" and "ci=manipulation,processing."
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> ...(though there are far more Lojban speakers and
> writers than Ygyde speakers).
If this proves superiority of Lojban over Ygyde, it
also proves superiority of Klingon over Lojban.
I do not know much about Lojban. I tried to learn
it but I was discouraged by its complexity and
its ugly consonant clusters.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Wrong. At least 6:
>> http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/nl-ipa/arabicipa.html
>> and as you can see, 25 consonants.
>
>I am glad you joined the thread! We can always
>learn something from your posts even if we do
>not agree on everything.
>
>I do not speak Arabic but Encyclopedia Britannica
>and a few web pages that I have seen mention only
>3 short a, i, u vowels and 3 long a, i, u vowels.
I gave you a cite to the contrary. Look at it.
>Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
>> For example,
>> the word LASER is an acronym from "Light Amplification
>> by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." Ygyde word for
>> laser beam is YDOGY = "noun narrow light." YDOGY is
>> easier to memorize and easier to pronounce than LASER.
>
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> A claim entirely without any support other than your
>> own author-biased views.
>
>Letter "r" is very difficult to learn.
A claim entirely without support.
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Lojban would do "narrow-light" as jakygu'i, and it wouldn't be limited
>> to the noun but could also be a verb...
>
>I could not find "jakygu" in Lojban dictionary,
jakygu'i. And I made it up on the fly. Lojbanists don't need a
dictionary. I used your metaphor "narrow-light".
>only "gusni." Beam is "nenli'i" or "nejni."
nejni is x1 is energy of type x2 in form x3. It might be a beam or it
might not. nenli'i represents the metaphor "energy-line" and thus
could be a "beam" line-energy_form would be more accurate. That
would be lijyselnejni. Made up on the fly and perfectly valid Lojban.
>> English/Lojban Dictionary - First draft official publication 26 September 1994
>> Copyright 1994, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Note that the draft dictionary is more than 10 years old. The
language has progressed enormously even if the thousands of new words
used have not been compiled into a dictionary.
>By the way, why is your dictionary so complex?
It isn't.
>It seems that rules to make compound words (lujvo) are very complex also.
Relative to what? The rules ALWAYS give a valid result, and that
requires more complexity given Lojban's morphology rules.
>Ygyde can also easily derive verbs and adjectives
>from nouns.
You misunderstand. Lojban doesn't have to derive verbs and adjectives
from nouns because all Lojban predicate words can serve as any of
these.
>For example:
>
>laser beam = ydogy = "noun narrow light"
>to laser beam?, to aim laser beam? = udogy = "verb narrow light"
That is a different word.
>laser-like beam = adogy = "adjective narrow light"
That is also a different word.
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> ...be used to identify the frequency and intensity,
>> the target, etc. all with the same word.
>
>Sounds interesting but rather vague. Are these words
>long-winded jaw breakers?
I don't think do, but I am just as biased as you are.
>> - but you don't have to - laser could be
>> stimulated-light fragu'i or intense-light camgu'i or regular-light
>> dikygu'i depending on aspect what you want to emphasize, or all of the
>> above: fradikcamgu'i),
>
>I could not find "fragu" and "dikygu" in the Lojban
>dictionary.
So what? And you are again missing
>"Fradikcamgu'i" looks like a jaw breaker.
It is five syllables, none of which is difficult:
fra,dik,(sh)am,gu,(h)i Considering how much information it conveys:
Reactively-regular-intense-illuminator, it is extremely efficient.
>Ygyde has fewer (180) root words than Lojban (1350),
>but its roots are very short (2 letters), so they
>are well suited for making compound words.
It is well suited for making obscure compound words. Given the need
for a third syllable to identify the part of speech, there are only
32,400 possible three-syllable nouns, most of which are meaningless.
Lojban has 10-20 times that many three-syllable predicates,
>It is
>impossible to make "stimulated-light" and "intense-light"
>compound words in Ygyde because there are no root
>words for "stimulated" or "intense."
That is one problem.
>Perhaps Ygyde
>root "py=burning" could be used instead of "intense."
"Burning" does not mean "intense". "(noun)-burning-light" is
"firelight" to me, not "laser".
>The best substitutes for "stimulated" are Ygyde roots
>"co=changing" and "ci=manipulation,processing."
Neither of which suggests "laser" to me when combined with "light".
You have so few roots that the compounding semantics is hopelessly
obscure. Lojban's is less obscure, but even so, the community
demanded more specific rules for compounds, and thus the meanings of a
subset of compounds called jvajvo are much more predictable than is
possible with your language or even the original Lojban design.
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> ...(though there are far more Lojban speakers and
>> writers than Ygyde speakers).
>
>If this proves superiority of Lojban over Ygyde, it
>also proves superiority of Klingon over Lojban.
I never claimed that numbers imply superiority. Numbers do imply
success, and indeed I can say that Klingon has been more successful
than Lojban. But Klingon has likely peaked whereas Lojban has no
reason to peak in the near future, since it is no longer dependent on
its founder for promulgation.
>I do not know much about Lojban. I tried to learn
>it but I was discouraged by its complexity and
>its ugly consonant clusters.
Whereas I find your language ugly, thus showing that your use of
adjectives like "ugly" and "cute" are absolutely useless in evaluating
a language, being entirely subjective.
Andrew Nowicki
Different speakers of Long Ygyde can use different
phonemes in the same place of the same word. For
example, vowel "a" and vowel "e" are interchangeable.
Those who cannot pronounce "a" can use "e" and vice
versa. Letters of Long Ygyde's alphabet are numbered.
Vowels:
1. a, e
2. u, o
3. i, y
Consonants:
1. b, p
2. d, t
3. g, k
4. w(=v), f
5. z, s, h
6. j, c(=ch)
7. m, n
8. l
Translation table (for translations between Standard
Ygyde and Long Ygyde) is posted at:
http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyde.htm#long
Mark Carroll
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
(snip)
>Note that the draft dictionary is more than 10 years old. The
>language has progressed enormously even if the thousands of new words
>used have not been compiled into a dictionary.
I could imagine that it would help to attract new users if many of
these new words could be included? At least, the words that have
gained some foothold in the community and whose meaning isn't
unambiguously obvious from the roots. With the advent of decent
automated typesetting, and online stores like CafePress that make
self-publishing easy, most of the work in a new edition would be in
compiling the new content, which perhaps is worth doing anyway?
-- Mark
Bob LeChevalier
The Lojban community leaders have chosen a different direction in
dictionary compilation, based on community input to an online
dictionary called jbovlaste which will support up to 61 languages
besides English.
http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/
In addition, there are other, higher priority, tasks taking precedence
over dictionary work. Lojban is relying on word of mouth to get new
users right now and is not really strongly pushing for them, since we
have trouble supporting them. Building and supporting a community is
much more difficult than building a language, and it is utterly
necessary for long term sustained growth.
Andrew Nowicki
> The Lojban community leaders have chosen a different direction in
> dictionary compilation, based on community input to an online
> dictionary called jbovlaste which will support up to 61 languages
> besides English.
>
> http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/
There are two dictionary links posted on this page:
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/tmp/SpJP4CHAe2/ErvX7RvmEg.tex
is in obscure TEX format. I could not find a free reader.
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/tmp/SpJP4CHAe2/ErvX7RvmEg.pdf
is a broken link.
I tried to find some basic info on http://www.lojban.org:
how to make nouns, verbs, adjectives, and tenses.
Unfortunately, all I could find were tons of irrelevant
data. I hope that Lojban grows, but it is hard to
attract new supporters when your main web site is a mess.
You should make a small HTML document describing the
main features of Lojban and explaining these features
with examples.
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Some spoken languages do not have european phonemes.
> For example, Arabic language has only 3 vowels: a, i, u.
My Arabic book shows 10 vowels, but 6 if you don't consider
vowel length as a factor. If I remember correctly the book is
based upon the Egyptian dialect.
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> An artificial IAL cannot compete with the major
> spoken languages head on, but it can supplant them
> as a means of making new compound words. For example,
> the word LASER is an acronym from "Light Amplification
> by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." Ygyde word for
> laser beam is YDOGY = "noun narrow light." YDOGY is
> easier to memorize and easier to pronounce than LASER.
I find "laser" much easier to pronounce. Your "ydogy" has that
final /I/, which would become /i/ in many dialects. Now here is
one case where the Ygyde is confusing because many speakers
won't be able to distinguish to two at all.
Dana Nutter
> It is hard to beat English. Maybe a simplified form
> of English would have a chance? English, Ceqli,
> Interlingua, Mondlango (Ulango) and many other
> euroclones have the "r" phoneme, which is very
> difficult to learn.
Which "R" is hard to learn? What we write as "R" can be
pronounced in a variety of different ways: tongue-flap, trill,
uvular, etc. "R" could easily be defined with a lot of
allophones, including those which may be written as "L" in some
languages. Most languages do have some form of "R" or "L".
I see a lot of "Language X has ...." or "Language Y doesn't have
..." when people discuss creating auxlangs. Just because a
feature is not present in someone's native language doesn't mean
they can't learn it. The criteria should be how easy it will be
to learn that feature for someone that hasn't been previously
exposed to it.
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> ) Greeks also
> invented 5 new letters and changed the direction of
> writing (from left to right).
I read somewhere that Greek writing had been found in both
directions, and that some texts actually alternated direction on
every other line.
> To the best of my knowledge
> Japanese language is the only natural language which
> abounds with compound words.
Ever tried to learn German? It has a lot of compounds.
Dana Nutter
<kex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some spoken languages do not have european phonemes.
> If, however, you wish not to alienate the Hawaiians, you may wish also
> to disclude b, d, t, g, and s from Long Ygyde.
And how many Hawaiians actually speak Hawaiian?
Dana Nutter
> Hawaiian language has five vowels (a, e, i, o, u)
> and eight consonants (h, k, l, m, n, p, w) including
> the `okina or glottal stop.
> Hawaiians speak some English, so this problem is not
> real. They can pronounce j and c(=ch).
Hawaiians speak "Pidjin" now. It's really just a local dialect
of English.
> A more real problem is how to cope with the very small
> number of phonemes. Long Ygyde has 10 consonants. If
> we take away 2 consonants, we take away 18 syllables,
> so we have to invent 18 new syllables, probably by
> combining letter "l" with consonants. It is doable.
Why not have just two phonemes "0" and "1". That's real simple.
You can generate a series of binary numbers for a vocabulary.
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I do not speak Arabic but Encyclopedia Britannica
> and a few web pages that I have seen mention only
> 3 short a, i, u vowels and 3 long a, i, u vowels.
They may be referring to Classical Arabic (the language of the
Qur'an). Modern Arabic comes in many different dialacts.
Bob LeChevalier
>On 28 Dec 2004 15:20:12 -0800, "Kevin Bowman"
><kex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Some spoken languages do not have european phonemes.
>> If, however, you wish not to alienate the Hawaiians, you may wish also
>> to disclude b, d, t, g, and s from Long Ygyde.
>
>And how many Hawaiians actually speak Hawaiian?
1000 native speakers, half of them over 70, and 8000 total speakers,
according to Ethnologue:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=HWI
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> The Lojban community leaders have chosen a different direction in
>> dictionary compilation, based on community input to an online
>> dictionary called jbovlaste which will support up to 61 languages
>> besides English.
>>
>> http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/
>
>There are two dictionary links posted on this page:
>
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/tmp/SpJP4CHAe2/ErvX7RvmEg.tex
> is in obscure TEX format. I could not find a free reader.
>
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/tmp/SpJP4CHAe2/ErvX7RvmEg.pdf
> is a broken link.
I do not find those links on the page I cited above. Where did you
find them?
>I tried to find some basic info on http://www.lojban.org:
>how to make nouns, verbs, adjectives, and tenses.
Then you are asking the wrong question, since Lojban does not have
nouns, verbs and adjectives.
>Unfortunately, all I could find were tons of irrelevant
>data. I hope that Lojban grows, but it is hard to
>attract new supporters when your main web site is a mess.
Voluminous, yes. A mess, no.
>You should make a small HTML document describing the
>main features of Lojban and explaining these features
>with examples.
Not one but two:
http://www.lojban.org/publications/level0.html
http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/book1.html
both of which are trivially found from the home page www.lojban.org by
clicking on "Learning Lojban: Just Starting Out".
These will not tell you much about making new words, which is a
moderately advanced topic.
You'll find that on the main page by clicking on "Learning Lojban:
Experienced" and selecting The Complete Lojban Language, which exists
in an HTML draft form.
http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar.html
Chapter 2 of that book is another introduction to the features of the
language. Chapters 3, 4, and 12 discuss phonology, morphology, and
word-making. You especially need Chapter 4 section 11, and will find
Chapter 12 to be difficult on its own if you have not studied much of
the language.
There is also a Lojban beginners list and a Lojban wiki (and wiki
forums) for those seeking information in other forms.
All three cited documents above, the basic word lists, and a pointer
to the Lojban wiki are on the home page under "Finding Lojbanic
Information: Popular Pages".
I fail to see how you could not have easily found this information.
Dana Nutter
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> Dana Nutter <dn20...@nutter.net> wrote:
>
> >On 28 Dec 2004 15:20:12 -0800, "Kevin Bowman"
> ><kex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Some spoken languages do not have european phonemes.
> >> If, however, you wish not to alienate the Hawaiians, you may wish also
> >> to disclude b, d, t, g, and s from Long Ygyde.
> >
> >And how many Hawaiians actually speak Hawaiian?
>
> 1000 native speakers, half of them over 70, and 8000 total speakers,
> according to Ethnologue:
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=HWI
>
> lojbab
That was a rhetorical question. I know there aren't many
speakers.
Andrew Nowicki
> http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/
> There are two dictionary links posted on this page:
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/tmp/SpJP4CHAe2/ErvX7RvmEg.tex
> is in obscure TEX format. I could not find a free reader.
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/tmp/SpJP4CHAe2/ErvX7RvmEg.pdf
> is a broken link.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> I do not find those links on the page I cited above.
> Where did you find them?
I can not find them now. They were at the bottom
of the main page.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> You should make a small HTML document describing the
> main features of Lojban and explaining these features
> with examples.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> http://www.lojban.org/publications/level0.html
> http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/book1.html
> http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar.html
These are just collections of links which lead to
long, untidy documents. For example, in chapter 2
section 3 you use term "cmavo" without defining it.
In section 4 you introduce the concept of selbri relations
in a way that looks like a puzzle:
> vecnu x1 (seller) sells x2 (goods) to x3 (buyer)
> for x4 (price)
I understood it eventually, but someone else may not
have the patience to labor through your documents.
You really need a smart guy who knows nothing about
Lojban, but plenty about HTML, clear writing style,
and simple GIF graphics. Let him learn Lojban from
your existing web pages and re-write these web pages.
I believe it would be good idea to follow each Lojban
word with its English translation. Another good idea
is to follow new term with English translation in the
first few paragraphs after its introduction. For
example, use "tanru(metaphor)" rather than "tanru."
In general, try to make life easier for those who
have the patience to read your text.
Chapter 3: Use sound files instead of descriptions
like "unvoiced velar fricative."
Chapters 4: This chapter reveals the unnecessary
complexity of Lojban word making.
Chapter 12: Far too long -- cut it by half.
It seems to me that the basic concept and strength
of Lojban are the selbri relations. Selbris are sort
of verbs which impose grammatical structure on the
sentence, so few prepositions are needed. Selbris
are efficient and precise, but they force the
Lojbanists to remember their grammatical structure, which
is a burden. Lojban is precise, but it has no other
virtues. Millions of people listen to the simplified
English of Voice of America not because it is
precise, but because it is easy to understand.
There is a trade off between precision and speed.
A precise compound auxlang is like an old british
tank which has a little engine and a big gun. The
tank is useless because it is too slow to chase the
enemy or to escape it. The precise compound auxlang
is too slow because its compound words are too long.
Johnd Fstone
but still easier than a natural language. But that assumes that a
"regular" artificial language is always easier than a natural
language, ignoring that a language will be easier if its syntax is
similar to that of the learner's native language, which I think is a
more important difference. By that standard, Chinese is commonplace
and reassuring for an English speaker, Latin is somewhat alien, and
Lojban is very alien.
Perhaps the rules of Lojban are "without exception", but there are so
many rules. The place structure of each five-letter root word is
unpredictable. The shape and number of any root word's allomorphs is
unpredictable. The roles the roots will play in a random compound are
unpredictable. The place structure of the compounds is unpredictable.
Etc.
Lojban is also full of sibilant/shibilant tongue twisters. Lojbanists
claim this is because Chinese was a source language, and it is full of
shibilants which skewed the gismu-generating algorithm. But Chinese
is not a tongue-twister, unlike Lojban (or German). The gismu are
nothing like Chinese. The "Chinese" "source language words" which
helped generate Lojban's vocabulary are utterly, deadly wrong. The
biggest sin is that all of the "Chinese" "source language words" are
monosyllabic, but in actual Chinese, most of those "words" are
*components* of words, which may *always* be bound to other
components. They are no more separate words than "lang" and "gwidge"
are separate words in English. For example, the Chinese source "word"
for the gismu lijda "religion" is jiao4, which is presented to the
algorithm as jiau, and understandable distortion. The problem is that
jiao4 is *not* a Chinese word meaning religion. Zong1jiao4 is a
single Chinese word meaning religion, but its component syllables are
not. Jiao4 is used without zong1 in words like tian1zhu3jiao4
"Catholicism" and fo2jiao4 "Buddhism", but that doesn't make it a word
for religion any more than lang (of language, conlang, auxlang,
artlang) is a word for language. You must have bought into the myth
of monosyllabic Chinese if you consistently gave the computer things
like jiau rather than zunjiau.
Take also mian4 "face, surface", which is transcribed as mian and used
in generating the gismu mlana "side". Aside from the fact that bian1
is a better word for "side", if you knew Pin1yin1, you'd transcribe
Pin1yin1 mian as Lojban mien, not mian. But this misreading of -ian
as [jan] is consistent in Lojban's source words from Chinese. Thus
the gismu tsani "sky", which even has the rafsi tan, has
embarrassingly obvious roots in the *spelling*, not the pronunciation,
of Chinese tian1 "sky, heaven, day". Ugh, ugh, ugh. There's a reason
that the Sino-Japanese reading of tian1 is ten. Lojban, too, should
have ten, not tan. This is as horrible and disgusting as Esperanto's
three-syllable words piedo and soifo from French words pronounced
[pje] and [swaf] and boato from English [bowt].
Can a language without native speakers be anything other than clunky
and ill at ease? Can a language learner pick up such a language by
reading in it with the help of a dictionary, casually absorbing its
rules, as he would do with a real language? At least natural
languages have lots of reading material written in them by writers who
aren't self-conscious about their usage--they don't care whether it is
malglico i.e. not alien enough.
--
Stallman's EMACS was brilliant in the 1970s, but today we demand more,
specifically Microsoft Word, which can't be written over a weekend, no
matter how much Coke you drink. -- Bob Metcalfe
Bob LeChevalier
>
>> You should make a small HTML document describing the
>> main features of Lojban and explaining these features
>> with examples.
>
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> http://www.lojban.org/publications/level0.html
>> http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/book1.html
>> http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar.html
>
>These are just collections of links which lead to
>long, untidy documents.
Actually, all three are links to HTML versions of published books, all
of which have received excellent reviews by the Lojban community. The
third has been in print for 7 years now, selling close to 500 copies
at hardcover prices while still available for free on line. (It does
have a nearly 60 page index in print which makes it very useful).
The second is an introductory textbook. People have learned the
language from that book up to conversational competence. (Some have
used the third cited book as well even though it is designed as a
language reference and not a lesson book).
>For example, in chapter 2
I have no idea which of the three books you are referring to.
>section 3 you use term "cmavo" without defining it.
>In section 4 you introduce the concept of selbri relations
>in a way that looks like a puzzle:
>> vecnu x1 (seller) sells x2 (goods) to x3 (buyer)
>> for x4 (price)
>I understood it eventually, but someone else may not
>have the patience to labor through your documents.
We haven't had that problem yet among those who have bought the book.
>I believe it would be good idea to follow each Lojban
>word with its English translation.
We don't.
>Another good idea
>is to follow new term with English translation in the
>first few paragraphs after its introduction.
We disagree.
>For example, use "tanru(metaphor)" rather than "tanru."
That has led to problems in the past, which is why we do it this way.
We WANT students of the language to stop relying on English, because
the English "keywords" lead to misunderstanding since the Lojban words
seldom mean *exactly* what the English word means, and sometimes the
English keyword is only a coarse approximation (as would be the case
for the "translations" of cmavo and tanru). Better that people get
used to using the Lojban words.
>In general, try to make life easier for those who
>have the patience to read your text.
>
>Chapter 3: Use sound files instead of descriptions
>like "unvoiced velar fricative."
It's a hard cover book, and a language reference. We use technical
terms because those are correct.
>Chapters 4: This chapter reveals the unnecessary
>complexity of Lojban word making.
In you quite unhumble opinion.
>Chapter 12: Far too long -- cut it by half.
Grow up (more polite than my original expletive). The original was
twice as long, and I wanted to keep more of it, but the book author
wanted to pare things down. This is a language reference, and people
want details.
>It seems to me that the basic concept and strength
>of Lojban are the selbri relations. Selbris are sort
>of verbs which impose grammatical structure on the
>sentence, so few prepositions are needed. Selbris
>are efficient and precise, but they force the
>Lojbanists to remember their grammatical structure, which
>is a burden. Lojban is precise, but it has no other
>virtues.
You are clueless. Learn the language and we may find your comments
relevant.
>Millions of people listen to the simplified
>English of Voice of America not because it is
>precise, but because it is easy to understand.
No, they listen to it because they may have no other choice or because
the US is the 800 pound gorilla of world affairs.
>There is a trade off between precision and speed.
>A precise compound auxlang is like an old british
>tank which has a little engine and a big gun. The
>tank is useless because it is too slow to chase the
>enemy or to escape it. The precise compound auxlang
>is too slow because its compound words are too long.
In your not so humble opinion.
Bob LeChevalier
>Lojbanists like to say that Lojban is hard for an artificial language
>but still easier than a natural language. But that assumes that a
>"regular" artificial language is always easier than a natural
>language, ignoring that a language will be easier if its syntax is
>similar to that of the learner's native language, which I think is a
>more important difference. By that standard, Chinese is commonplace
>and reassuring for an English speaker, Latin is somewhat alien, and
>Lojban is very alien.
Lojban's grammar takes a fraction as much time to learn as sufficient
lexicon. The lexicon takes a fraction as much time to learn as the
various ways to be semantically correct while avoiding natlang idioms
that are not correct.
>Perhaps the rules of Lojban are "without exception", but there are so
>many rules.
Not really
>The place structure of each five-letter root word is
>unpredictable.
There are patterns, and while the place structure seems complex, JUST
AS MUCH COMPLEXITY lies in EVERY English word, but the English
complexity is hidden.
In English, you have to learn which prepositions can be attached to
the verb meaningfully, and what those prepositions mean when so
attached. The set of prepositions exactly corresponds to the Lojban
place structures.
I am going TO the store WITH Mary.
I give the book TO John WITH a bookmark inside.
It seems TO me that people aren't familiar WITH Lojban concepts.
In each of those the two prepositions mean something slightly
different. The exact meaning has to be learned to master the
language, and it usually isn't found in a dictionary. On the other
hand you can say a lot in the English language without knowing the
exact meanings of the prepositions, and sometimes guesswork is good
enough. Lojban has place structures explicitly defined. They have to
be learned to master the language, but they ARE in the dictionary. On
the other hand, you can say a lot in Lojban without knowing the
complete place structures, and sometimes guesswork is good enough.
>The shape and number of any root word's allomorphs is
>unpredictable.
Wrong. There are a limited number of possibilities for any given
word, and once some are learned the remaining possibilities are
reduced. Furthermore, it doesn't matter for speaking (only for
reading/listening) because all of the allomorphs can be used
interchangeably without changing the meaning of the word. Thus
brivla = bridyvalsi = brivalsi = bridyvla - they are all the same
word, and the beginner who has learned no others can use the long form
bridyvalsi which is perfectly correct and 100% predictable.
>The roles the roots will play in a random compound are
>unpredictable.
That is why many Lojbanists use jvajvo (chapter 12 in the 3rd book
cited in my response to Nowicki), in which there are rules.
>The place structure of the compounds is unpredictable.
That is why many Lojbanists use jvajvo, in which there are rules for
predicting.
>Lojban is also full of sibilant/shibilant tongue twisters.
That one is a legitimate criticism, and one I now regret, especially
since I am especially bad at sibilant tongue twisters.
>Lojbanists
>claim this is because Chinese was a source language, and it is full of
>shibilants which skewed the gismu-generating algorithm.
That is correct.
>But Chinese is not a tongue-twister, unlike Lojban (or German).
No it isn't. It does have several sounds which to English speakers
sound like a small number of sibilants in the right context.
>The gismu are nothing like Chinese.
Some Chinese speakers have said otherwise.
>The "Chinese" "source language words" which
>helped generate Lojban's vocabulary are utterly, deadly wrong.
It is plausible, but some Chinese speakers have said otherwise, and it
doesn't much matter unless we prove that the word-construction
algorithm is meaningful in predicting learnability, a test that has
yet to be adequately made.
>The
>biggest sin is that all of the "Chinese" "source language words" are
>monosyllabic,
Wrong. Most of them are,
>but in actual Chinese, most of those "words" are
>*components* of words, which may *always* be bound to other
>components.
So may Lojban roots.
>They are no more separate words than "lang" and "gwidge"
>are separate words in English. For example, the Chinese source "word"
>for the gismu lijda "religion" is jiao4, which is presented to the
>algorithm as jiau, and understandable distortion. The problem is that
>jiao4 is *not* a Chinese word meaning religion. Zong1jiao4 is a
>single Chinese word meaning religion, but its component syllables are
>not. Jiao4 is used without zong1 in words like tian1zhu3jiao4
>"Catholicism" and fo2jiao4 "Buddhism", but that doesn't make it a word
>for religion any more than lang (of language, conlang, auxlang,
>artlang) is a word for language.
It does not have to be "the" word for religion. It has to be a valid
Chinese-based memory hook for a Chinese speaker learning that lijda
means religion, which it is. Some of the English keywords are based
on Latinate roots found in many English words for which the meaning of
the root is suggestive of meaning to most educated English speakers,
and of course this is true for all of the metric prefixes, none of
which are standalone words - yet every English speaker knows what the
prefix milli- means, and will be able to make a good guess what the
Lojban affix milty- (based on milti) means just as well.
> You must have bought into the myth
>of monosyllabic Chinese if you consistently gave the computer things
>like jiau rather than zunjiau.
No, we didn't. We did what we did intentionally because we knew that
the Lojban algorithm was only going to take a piece of the Chinese
word anyway, especially if we used a polysyllabic word. To a Chinese
learner, lijda linking to jiao[jiau] gives a clue, but if the longer
word had been used, the Chinese contribution might have been the un of
zong[zun] and the u of jiao[jiau] and un-u would in fact give a
Chinese speaker almost no clue to the memory hook intended.
Arabic has a similar problem when interacting with the Lojban
algorithm. Arabic vowels are almost useless as memory hooks, but
sometimes the algorithm gave credit for Arabic based on the vowels and
their separation - totally useless, and it is a recognized flaw in the
algorithm, but Arabic was never expected to impact words much so we
didn't worry it too much - we HAD to find ways to get Chinese words to
fit the algorithm optimally as memory hooks because Chinese has the
highest language weight.
>Take also mian4 "face, surface", which is transcribed as mian and used
>in generating the gismu mlana "side". Aside from the fact that bian1
>is a better word for "side", if you knew Pin1yin1, you'd transcribe
>Pin1yin1 mian as Lojban mien, not mian. But this misreading of -ian
>as [jan] is consistent in Lojban's source words from Chinese.
Our representation of the Pinyin is based on a Chinese-published
reference dictionary which gives the IPA equivalent of each of the
strings. I'd have to check in the other room, but I believe we did it
as represented.
>Can a language without native speakers be anything other than clunky
>and ill at ease? Can a language learner pick up such a language by
>reading in it with the help of a dictionary, casually absorbing its
>rules, as he would do with a real language?
No idea. I would never try to learn a language that way and expect to
get much (and that is in fact how I've studied languages, never
getting an understanding of the rules until I read a textbook).
Andrew Nowicki
> I am going TO the store WITH Mary.
> I give the book TO John WITH a bookmark inside.
> It seems TO me that people aren't familiar WITH Lojban concepts.
"I am going TO the store WITH Mary." is not ambiguous.
"I give the book TO John WITH a bookmark inside."
can be replaced in most auxlangs with:
"I give the book and a bookmark inside to John."
"It seems TO me that people aren't familiar WITH Lojban concepts."
is a very idiomatic expression which can be replaced in most
auxlangs with: "I believe that people do not know Lojban concepts."
Ambiguity due to long, conditional sentences can be
easily eliminated in auxlangs with special words
separating the clauses. Grammar is a small part
of most auxlangs, so it is easy to learn. The
most difficult part of learning any language is
its vocabulary and its phonemes. Borrowing words
from Mandarin does not help because less than
20% of the human population speaks Mandarin.
The best auxlang is the one which has the best
vocabulary, which means a vocabulary that is easy
to learn, easy to pronounce, and easy to understand
in a fast speech. Lojban is not a leader in any of
these categories.
Compound words are, in my opinion, the key to
inventing a superb auxlang. Some auxlangers do
not like short compound words because they are
ambiguous. Others do not like long compound words
because they are tongue twisters. Maybe it would
be good idea to make an auxlang with two sets of
compound words: short ones and long ones?
Prai Jei
<41D43E25...@nospam.com>:
Let's try the three examples in Hallon:
>> I am going TO the store WITH Mary.
Hu udul seda Maria
I-to store with Mary
>> I give the book TO John WITH a bookmark inside.
Ha dos puvashu John seda baroga-veshamor'em na.
I [bring it about] that book-to John with place-indicator-in [it].
>> It seems TO me that people aren't familiar WITH Lojban concepts.
Oviol u ha dos mu joveshu sed'etio Lojban.
[It] appears to me that [there is] no easy-goingness with-ideas [of] Lojban.
In each case "to" is translated "u" and "with" as "seda", though this is
disguised by adjointing in the first two examples (it's the final -u of
"hu" and "puvashu" respectively). In the third example there is no need to
turn the sentence about - the order remains that of English although both
the main and subordinate clauses are Hallon "passive" or "impersonal"
forms. In the main clause the only difference from the English construction
is that there is no "it" at the beginning, in the subordinate clause the
vague subject ("people") is dropped.
Note that in the second example, the final "na" does not really translate
English "it" as indicated. Instead it is a follow-up to the implied
relative, to mark the true place of that relative in the sense.
A number of alternative translations of this sentence are possible according
to what's being emphasised.
John on shu ha dos puvashu na, seda baroga-veshamor'em si.
John was whom I gave the book to, with a bookmark inside. (It wasn't given
to anybody else.)
Shim ha dos puvashu John on, ha valun dos baroga-veshamor'em si.
When I gave the book to John, I had placed a bookmark inside. (Emphasis on
the bookmark being there. In this case a statement of what was indicated by
the bookmark, would be expected to follow.)
Hallon has minimal grammar but requires careful choice of words and word
ordering to bring out the exact sense. While it is fairly easy to
pronounce, I must admit it fails on the vocabulary element since the words
would all have to be learnt a-priori.
But how do these examples click with the subject line which accuses Lojban
of being irregular? I haven't seen the head message of this thread, could
somebody repost it please?
Sove mis ejol u orashu sil.
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Andrew Nowicki
> But how do these examples click with the subject line which accuses Lojban
> of being irregular? I haven't seen the head message of this thread, could
> somebody repost it please?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.language.artificial/msg/c45930a6371d867c
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> I am going TO the store WITH Mary.
>> I give the book TO John WITH a bookmark inside.
>> It seems TO me that people aren't familiar WITH Lojban concepts.
>
>"I am going TO the store WITH Mary." is not ambiguous.
Did I say it was?
>"I give the book TO John WITH a bookmark inside."
>can be replaced in most auxlangs with:
>"I give the book and a bookmark inside to John."
>
>"It seems TO me that people aren't familiar WITH Lojban concepts."
>is a very idiomatic expression which can be replaced in most
>auxlangs with: "I believe that people do not know Lojban concepts."
You seem to have entirely missed the point of the examples, and I have
no idea what point you thought I was trying to make. I was giving
examples to show that fully learning the meaning of English words
requires learning the meanings of the prepositions that can be
associated with those words, the set of which as well as the meanings
of which, vary with each word. That the meanings can be ambiguous
only makes it more difficult.
That people using auxlangs can express the meanings of my examples in
other ways is totally irrelevant to anything, since I was comparing
the alleged difficulty of learning Lojban words and their place
structures to the known difficulty of learning English words and their
preposition structures.
>Ambiguity due to long, conditional sentences can be
>easily eliminated in auxlangs with special words
>separating the clauses.
Not relevant.
>Grammar is a small part
>of most auxlangs, so it is easy to learn.
Agreed.
>The
>most difficult part of learning any language is
>its vocabulary
Half agreement. The most difficult part of learning any language is
learning the idiosyncrasies of semantics and idiom, which may be
considered part of "learning the vocabulary" or not.
Learning the vocabulary is the most time-consuming part of learning a
language, but I would contend that it is not the most difficult. You
do not need to learn all of a language's lexicon in order to use the
language, so the real question is how much time does it take to learn
enough vocabulary to start reading others' writings easily, and then
how much to start expressing yourself easily.
>and its phonemes.
Learning phonemes is not especially difficult, especially since you
don't necessarily need to learn them perfectly. Learning to speak
without a noticeable foreign accent is very difficult, but in my
opinion usually unnecessary for the purposes that most people learn
languages.
>Borrowing words
>from Mandarin does not help because less than
>20% of the human population speaks Mandarin.
More than any other single language.
>The best auxlang
No such thing as "the" best auxlang.
>is the one which has the best vocabulary,
No such thing as "the" best vocabulary, and I'm not sure that "best"
is meaningful either.
>which means a vocabulary that is easy
>to learn, easy to pronounce, and easy to understand
>in a fast speech.
Each of those measurements will differ based on the mother language of
the learner, their exposure to other languages, and many other
factors. The result is that any evaluation on such matters is
entirely subjective and arbitrary.
>Lojban is not a leader in any of these categories.
In your not-very-humble opinion.
>Compound words are, in my opinion, the key to inventing a superb auxlang.
A relatively uninteresting claim.
>Some auxlangers do
>not like short compound words because they are
>ambiguous.
I think you misunderstand the criticisms, which are multiple.
>Others do not like long compound words
>because they are tongue twisters.
Long compounds might or might not be tongue twisters, and again it
depends on the mother tongue of the speaker.
>Maybe it would
>be good idea to make an auxlang with two sets of
>compound words: short ones and long ones?
Lojban has that, as I explained in my long post. Beginners usually
use the longest form because the long affixes are trivial to learn.
Short words are usually learned as units from seeing other people use
them, and then after a good feel for the language and its components
is acquired, people start to make up their own short words, and very
rarely do they have trouble doing it correctly.
Prai Jei
<41D45607...@nospam.com>:
It looks like I've butted in to something that has been going on a long
time. I thought that there would only have been one or two messages ahead
of the one I saw originally. If my post is irrelevant to the discussion,
please forgive me.
Andrew Nowicki
> The most difficult part of learning any language is
> its vocabulary
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Half agreement. The most difficult part of learning any language is
> learning the idiosyncrasies of semantics and idiom, which may be
> considered part of "learning the vocabulary" or not.
My fault. I really tried to compare Lojban
to other auxlangs.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> ...and its phonemes.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Learning phonemes is not especially difficult, especially since you
> don't necessarily need to learn them perfectly. Learning to speak
> without a noticeable foreign accent is very difficult, but in my
> opinion usually unnecessary for the purposes that most people learn
> languages.
I disagree. If your mother tongue does not make
a distinction between, say, "b" and "p," you do
not hear these differences. The same is true of
tones. Of course, auxlangs are easier to pronounce
than natural languages, but some of them have letter
"r." Female speakers of Múra-Piraha language use
only nine phonemes.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> ...which means a vocabulary that is easy to learn,
> easy to pronounce, and easy to understand in a fast speech.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Each of those measurements will differ based on the mother language of
> the learner, their exposure to other languages, and many other
> factors. The result is that any evaluation on such matters is
> entirely subjective and arbitrary.
I disagree again. Long Ygyde has only three
vowel groups and eight consonant groups.
Vowels: 1. a, e, 2. u, o 3. i, y
Consonants: 1. b, p 2. d, t 3. g, k 4. v, f
5. z, s, h 6. j, c (=ch in church) 7. m, n 8. l
If you cannot pronounce "z" you can pronounce
"s" or "h" instead.
Those who learn English as a second language cannot
understand fast English speech because they do not
know where one word ends and the next word begins.
Nearly all Ygyde words begin and end with a vowel,
so word parsing is easy.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Some auxlangers do not like short compound words
> because they are ambiguous.
> I think you misunderstand the criticisms, which are multiple.
I spent thousands of hours studying variety of
possible compound auxlangs, so I understand this
topic very well.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Others do not like long compound words
> because they are tongue twisters.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Long compounds might or might not be tongue twisters,
> and again it depends on the mother tongue of the speaker.
Sure it does. I can pronounce some Polish tongue
twisters that you cannot pronounce. Does it mean
that Polish phonemes and words would make good
auxlang? I do not think so. Compound words are
important and they deserve detailed study.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Maybe it would be good idea to make an auxlang
> with two sets of compound words: short ones and long ones?
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Lojban has that, as I explained in my long post.
I meant compound words made of different number
of root words. For example:
short compound word: pocket = "garment container"
long compound word: pocket = "cavity container garment part"
What you mean is short and long versions of the
same root words. Both Lojban and Ygyde have short
and long versions of the root words, but they use
it differently. It seems to me that short Lojban
root words are merely abbreviated forms of the
long root words. Ygyde has two versions of the
root words (2-letters long and 3-letters long)
because the short roots are made of 21 phonemes
and the long roots are made of 11 phoneme groups.
The long roots are easier to pronounce for those
who cannot pronounce some of the long root phonemes.
Bob LeChevalier
>Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>> Some auxlangers do not like short compound words
>> because they are ambiguous.
>
>> I think you misunderstand the criticisms, which are multiple.
>
>I spent thousands of hours studying variety of
>possible compound auxlangs, so I understand this
>topic very well.
Thousands of hours? Right, Noah.
You do not understand the criticisms of your language.
>Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>> Others do not like long compound words
>> because they are tongue twisters.
>
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Long compounds might or might not be tongue twisters,
>> and again it depends on the mother tongue of the speaker.
>
>Sure it does. I can pronounce some Polish tongue
>twisters that you cannot pronounce.
You might be surprised, since I've studied Russian.
>Compound words are important and they deserve detailed study.
Not more than anything else in the language.
>Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>> Maybe it would be good idea to make an auxlang
>> with two sets of compound words: short ones and long ones?
>
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Lojban has that, as I explained in my long post.
>
>I meant compound words made of different number of root words.
Lojban has that too.
>For example:
>short compound word: pocket = "garment container"
>long compound word: pocket = "cavity container garment part"
Lojban:
Most would probably just use the root word
pocket = daski
But they could match your two concoctions trivially.
"garment-container" (which is not "pocket" to me and others, as you've
been told, but let's say we agreed:)
garment-container = tafyvau or taxfyvasru or taxfyvau or ta'urvasru or
ta'urvau (all being considered the same word with the same meaning)
cavity-container-garment-part
kev/ke'a/kevny + vas/vau/vasry + taf/ta'u/taxfy + pau/pagbu
plus morphological hyphens when needed by the rules for
compound-making - 54 different wordforms for the same word ranging
from shorter to longer
kevyvastafpau to kevnyvasrytaxfypagpu
Or we could probably come up with other versions of "pocket", too.
I'm rather glad that we have the root word, since we can use daski to
make daskymabru (pocket-mammal) which is of course my quick attempt
at "marsupial", which has nothing to do with garments.
>What you mean is short and long versions of the same root words.
No. We have root words, and we have affixes used in compounds. They
are not "versions" of the same word. Your use of terminology is
sloppy.
>Both Lojban and Ygyde have short
>and long versions of the root words, but they use
>it differently. It seems to me that short Lojban
>root words are merely abbreviated forms of the
>long root words.
No. Affixes are not words and cannot be used except in compounds.
They are used because language inventor James Cooke Brown hypothesized
that per Zipf's law that people would want commonly used compounds to
be shorter than less commonly used words. (I did not exactly share his
belief, but stayed true to it in the Lojban redesign).
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> > Learning phonemes is not especially difficult, especially since you
> > don't necessarily need to learn them perfectly. Learning to speak
> > without a noticeable foreign accent is very difficult, but in my
> > opinion usually unnecessary for the purposes that most people learn
> > languages.
>
> I disagree. If your mother tongue does not make
> a distinction between, say, "b" and "p," you do
> not hear these differences. The same is true of
> tones.
To some extent this is true, but that doesn't mean the listener
won't understand. Ever listen to Chinese people speak English?
They can't disinguish /r/ from /l/ and do have a problem
distinguishing voiced/unvoiced consonants. Despite all these
issues, they can make themselves understood.
> Of course, auxlangs are easier to pronounce
> than natural languages,
Some auxlangs ARE natural languages (English, French, etc.). If
you mean constructed auxlangs, well that statement still makes
no sense because anyone could easily design one that will be
hard to pronounce. Oh wait, Zamenhof did that already!
> but some of them have letter
> "r."
What's wrong with R?
> Female speakers of Múra-Piraha language use
> only nine phonemes.
What about the males?
> Those who learn English as a second language cannot
> understand fast English speech because they do not
> know where one word ends and the next word begins.
Depends on their level of fluency. Many do understand it very
well.
> Nearly all Ygyde words begin and end with a vowel,
> so word parsing is easy.
What about Spanish speakers, who will slur vowels together in
this situation?
>. Compound words are
> important and they deserve detailed study.
Word compounding is a good method of generating a lexicon while
keeping the core vocabulary to a minimum but it shouldn't be the
only method of creating words. Certain words are very common in
everyday speech and long compounds make the language
inefficient. You have something like "foam food" for "bread".
Hearing something like "foam food" would not make me think of
bread, but maybe something like sponge cake. Why not just have
a unique word for "bread" and other commonly used concepts
rather than make people speak a long-winded description, or
worse yet, these idiomatic compounds which cause more confusion.
> short compound word: pocket = "garment container"
> long compound word: pocket = "cavity container garment part"
This is a good example of what I mean. I can't see anyone
guessing these to mean "pocket", especially if it's a different
type of pocket which is not found in clothing. "garment
container" would make me think of several possibilities, none of
which mean "pocket". Things that first come to mind: "closet",
"dresser", "chest", "suitcase", or something that holds
garments.
Andrew Nowicki
> For example:
> short compound word: pocket = "garment container"
> long compound word: pocket = "cavity container garment part"
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Lojban:
> Most would probably just use the root word
> pocket = daski
> But they could match your two concoctions trivially.
> "garment-container" (which is not "pocket" to me and others, as you've
> been told, but let's say we agreed:)
> garment-container = tafyvau or taxfyvasru or taxfyvau or ta'urvasru or
> ta'urvau (all being considered the same word with the same meaning)
> cavity-container-garment-part
> kev/ke'a/kevny + vas/vau/vasry + taf/ta'u/taxfy + pau/pagbu
> plus morphological hyphens when needed by the rules for
> compound-making - 54 different wordforms for the same word ranging
> from shorter to longer
> kevyvastafpau to kevnyvasrytaxfypagpu
> Or we could probably come up with other versions of "pocket", too.
This is what I meant. I used Ygyde roots and you
used Lojban roots, but we are not sure whether
"pocket" should be one of the roots, or a
compound word. If the "pocket" is difficult
to define by other roots and it is useful as the
root to make other compound words, than "pocket"
should be the root.
"kevyvastafpau" is not bad as far as 4 roots long
compounds go, but it has one imperfection: you
had to insert "y" between "kev" and "vas."
This is common problem with 3 letters long roots.
> I'm rather glad that we have the root word, since we can
> use daski to make daskymabru (pocket-mammal) which is of
> course my quick attempt at "marsupial", which has nothing
> to do with garments.
Now you speak my language!
marsupial = "pocket mammal" sounds very well, but
it is just one example of the "pocket" root usage.
One example would not convince me that this root is
useful. It takes great amount of time to play with
different roots to find the most useful ones.
daskymabru = daski (pocket) + mabru (mammal)
This 2 roots long compound is 10 letters long.
There are no short forms of daski and mabru
in your old dictionary.
An average non-european adult can easily memorize
the meaning of vague Ygyde compound words, but he
cannot easily pronounce phonemes which are exotic
to him. (I figured out how to pronounce "r" when I
was about 15 years old.) Ygyde deals with this
problem by having Long Ygyde version which is made
of 11 phoneme groups and 3 letters long roots.
The translation table between Standard Ygyde and
Long Ygyde has 96 entries (= 180/2 + 6). A similar
gismu (root) translation table in Lojban would
have 1350 entries unless you invent a way to
translate parts of the gismu. Suppose that all
standard gismu are 4 letters long. You can divide
them into two halves (2x2letters) and translate
each half into 3 phonemes of the reduced phoneme
set. The reduced phoneme set would have about
half as many phonemes as the existing Lojban
alphabet. This method does not work if the gismu
is 3 or 5 letters long. You can easily make 1350
new standard gismu from 4 letters, even if you get
rid of letter "r" and consonant clusters. In its
present form Lojban sounds harsh, like German or
Polish. It needs cosmetic surgery to make it sound
soft and nice, like Hawaiian or Lilipu. If all
the 4 letters long gismu start with a consonant
and end with a vowel (or vice versa), you can
eliminate consonant clusters in compound words
(lujvo).
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> What you mean is short and long versions of
> the same root words.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> No. We have root words, and we have affixes used in compounds.
> They are not "versions" of the same word. Your use of
> terminology is sloppy.
I believe there are at least two forms of Lojban
roots (gismu). For example, fire = fagri or fag.
Are the long forms necessary? The long forms may
be easier to understand in a noisy environment,
but they make Lojban more complex. Spelling out
the word "fag" would be easier than remembering
its long form.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Both Lojban and Ygyde have short
> and long versions of the root words, but they use
> it differently. It seems to me that short Lojban
> root words are merely abbreviated forms of the
> long root words.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> No. Affixes are not words and cannot be used
> except in compounds.
Is this distinction desirable? If you replace
the affixes with true roots, there will be
fewer vocabulary words to remember.
> They are used because language inventor James Cooke
> Brown hypothesized that per Zipf's law that people
> would want commonly used compounds to be shorter than
> less commonly used words. (I did not exactly share his
> belief, but stayed true to it in the Lojban redesign).
The 539 most commonly used Ygyde words are
3 letters long. None of them are compound words.
PS. Despite our disagreements we have one common
trait: we openly talk about imperfections of our
favorite auxlangs. Euroclone supporters never do
that.
Dana Nutter
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> Andrew Nowicki <and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >The
> >most difficult part of learning any language is
> >its vocabulary
>
> Half agreement. The most difficult part of learning any language is
> learning the idiosyncrasies of semantics and idiom, which may be
> considered part of "learning the vocabulary" or not.
>
> Learning the vocabulary is the most time-consuming part of learning a
> language, but I would contend that it is not the most difficult. You
> do not need to learn all of a language's lexicon in order to use the
> language, so the real question is how much time does it take to learn
> enough vocabulary to start reading others' writings easily, and then
> how much to start expressing yourself easily.
Agreed. English now has a lexicon of over 1,000,000 words and
nobody knows more than a small fraction of that. I remember
hearing somewhere that some of the original colonists in America
wouldn't use words that weren't in the King James Bible which
limited them to about 8000 words.
> >and its phonemes.
>
> Learning phonemes is not especially difficult, especially since you
> don't necessarily need to learn them perfectly. Learning to speak
> without a noticeable foreign accent is very difficult, but in my
> opinion usually unnecessary for the purposes that most people learn
> languages.
True. When a Chinese person says "flied lice" he/she is still
understood.
> >The best auxlang
>
> No such thing as "the" best auxlang.
The best for a particular situation maybe. A language like
Romanova would be best for uniting speakers of Romance languages
while Esperanto, Ido or Mondlango (which is "best" is a matter
for debate) may be better suited as a trans-European language.
The best IAL would of course be a matter of bigger debate, and
I'm sure we all have our own favorites.
> >is the one which has the best vocabulary,
>
> No such thing as "the" best vocabulary, and I'm not sure that "best"
> is meaningful either.
True. "Best" is probably not the best term to use. As far as
vocablary goes, have you taken any look at the Ygyde vocabulary?
It has about 60 distinct colors to learn, yet is uses
compounding to attempt to describe some of the most basic
concepts.
> >Some auxlangers do ....
>
> I think you misunderstand the criticisms, which are multiple.
Amen.
Andrew Nowicki
> Female speakers of Múra-Piraha language use
> only nine phonemes.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> What about the males?
Ten phonemes.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> Word compounding is a good method of generating a lexicon while
> keeping the core vocabulary to a minimum but it shouldn't be the
> only method of creating words. Certain words are very common in
> everyday speech and long compounds make the language
> inefficient. You have something like "foam food" for "bread".
> Hearing something like "foam food" would not make me think of
> bread, but maybe something like sponge cake. Why not just have
> a unique word for "bread" and other commonly used concepts
> rather than make people speak a long-winded description, or
> worse yet, these idiomatic compounds which cause more confusion.
I already explained details in the previous post.
Ygyde has 539 predefined 3 letters long words and
a few dozens of shorter predefined words. The rest
are compound words. The big problem for most compound
auxlangers is the optimum number of root words (roots).
Standard Ygyde is unique in its ability to squeeze
very large number (180) of different meanings into
very short (two letters, consonant-vowel) roots
made of 21 phonemes. It would be possible to use
the same algorithm in Ygyde-like language which
has 21 phonemes and over one thousand of 3 letters
long roots. The big problem is what to do with
speakers who cannot pronounce the 21 phonemes.
This is much bigger problem than vague meaning
of some Ygyde compound words. It is fairly easy
to translate the two-letter roots into three-letter
roots made of reduced (11) phoneme set. Such
translation table has only 96 entries. If however,
the standard, 21 phoneme roots are 3 letters long,
the translation table would have about a thousand
entries. There are more problems with 3 letters
long roots. To avoid consonant clusters they would
have to be either consonant-vowel-consonsonant, or
vowel-consonsonant-vowel. When you run two CVC roots
together, you make consonant cluster which may be
impossible to pronounce. When you run two VCV roots
together, you make vowel cluster, which is easier
to pronounce, but makes few roots because there are
fewer vowels than consonants. All these problems
with 3 letters long roots leave only two options:
use 2 letters long roots or 4 letters long roots.
4 letters long roots would make very long compound
words, especially when translated into the 6 letters
long roots of the reduced phoneme set.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> short compound word: pocket = "garment container"
> long compound word: pocket = "cavity container garment part"
Dana Nutter wrote:
> This is a good example of what I mean. I can't see anyone
> guessing these to mean "pocket"...
Another option may be: ofisa = "noun garment cavity"
The bottom part of the Basic English-Ygyde Dictionary
explains that some root pairs have special meanings
which must be memorized. For example, all enzymes are
called "noun chemical cellular XXXXX". Pocket is not
mentioned there because it is not a class of similar
things. Baked goods are not mentioned either.
"foam food" would not be precise definition because
some breads (e.g., pita) do not look like foam.
You seem to believe that a long set of roots would make
all compound words precise. Let us imagine that piano
is not one of the roots. How would you define it as
the compound word? Piano is defined in pidgin English
as "big black box, you hit it in the teeth, it cries."
Can you come up with a more concise, and yet precise
definition of the piano?
Dana Nutter
<and...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
> > Female speakers of Múra-Piraha language use
> > only nine phonemes.
>
> Dana Nutter wrote:
>
> > What about the males?
>
> Ten phonemes.
Why the difference? Where can I find documentation on this
language?
Andrew Nowicki
> Why the difference? Where can I find documentation on this
> language?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%E3_language
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=MYP
Dana Nutter
> > Word compounding is a good method of generating a lexicon while
> > keeping the core vocabulary to a minimum but it shouldn't be the
> > only method of creating words. Certain words are very common in
> > everyday speech and long compounds make the language
> > inefficient. You have something like "foam food" for "bread".
> > Hearing something like "foam food" would not make me think of
> > bread, but maybe something like sponge cake. Why not just have
> > a unique word for "bread" and other commonly used concepts
> > rather than make people speak a long-winded description, or
> > worse yet, these idiomatic compounds which cause more confusion.
>
> I already explained details in the previous post.
> Ygyde has 539 predefined 3 letters long words and
> a few dozens of shorter predefined words. The rest
> are compound words. The big problem for most compound
> auxlangers is the optimum number of root words (roots).
>
> Standard Ygyde is unique in its ability to ...
Standard, Short, Long, etc. Here's the big issue. Three
different versions = 3 times the confusion. The point of
creating an auxlang is to provide something easy to learn so
students of the language spend as little time as possible
studying it, and reach fluency quicker.
> The big problem is what to do with
> speakers who cannot pronounce the 21 phonemes.
They don't need to pronounce them exactly. A reasonably close
approximation can be understood.
> To avoid consonant clusters they would
> have to be either consonant-vowel-consonsonant, or
> vowel-consonsonant-vowel. When you run two CVC roots
> together, you make consonant cluster which may be
> impossible to pronounce.
Not necessarily. I used CVC[VC][VC] roots for SASXSEK, but
inserted a schwa to connect compounds and avoid clusters thus
fully preserving each part of the compound while easing
pronunciation. There are a small number of CV words , and some
V[C] morphemes which are used as suffixes. There are
currently only 3 words (actually particles) which begin with
vowels. Everything else begins with a consonant except for
proper nouns which may take almost any form. Word compounding
is serving as valuable method of generating vocabulary, but care
is being taken to avoid idiomatic usages. If no appropriate
compound can be made, then a new root will be added to the
lexicon to represent a unique idea. In other instances,
compounds can be created but they are just too long so a root is
chosen. Then there are those where compounds can be made, but
the result is something too ambiguous.
> When you run two VCV roots
> together, you make vowel cluster, which is easier
> to pronounce,
How is this easier to pronounce? What's to stop speakers from
running the vowels together into diphthongs.
> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
> > short compound word: pocket = "garment container"
> > long compound word: pocket = "cavity container garment part"
>
> Dana Nutter wrote:
>
> > This is a good example of what I mean. I can't see anyone
> > guessing these to mean "pocket"...
>
> Another option may be: ofisa = "noun garment cavity"
"Cavity", "pocket"? Very similar terms anyway. So now you have
something more understandable.
> The bottom part of the Basic English-Ygyde Dictionary
> explains that some root pairs have special meanings
> which must be memorized. For example, all enzymes are
> called "noun chemical cellular XXXXX". Pocket is not
> mentioned there because it is not a class of similar
> things. Baked goods are not mentioned either.
> "foam food" would not be precise definition because
> some breads (e.g., pita) do not look like foam.
True, it's not precise, but that's the compound you have in
your dictionary. And speaking of both "pocket bread" is
another term for "pita" but I can't imagine anyone saying
"cavity foam food".
> You seem to believe that a long set of roots would make
> all compound words precise. Let us imagine that piano
> is not one of the roots. How would you define it as
> the compound word? Piano is defined in pidgin English
> as "big black box, you hit it in the teeth, it cries."
> Can you come up with a more concise, and yet precise
> definition of the piano?
No I can't think of any appropriate compound, so I give it a
unique name "piano" rather than steering someone in the wrong
direction with some long senseless compound. However, the term
"keyboard" is often used for electronic pianos and synthesizers.
Someone who plays this instrument is usually referred to as a
"keyboard player" although you can also say "pianist".
Dana Nutter
Thanks. I had already checked Ethnologue, but was looking for
more detail. I'm still wondering what makes the men use an
extra phoneme. It must be something cultural. Anyone out there
have any ideas? What other languages have features like this?
Andrew Nowicki
> The big problem is what to do with
> speakers who cannot pronounce the 21 phonemes.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> They don't need to pronounce them exactly. A reasonably
> close approximation can be understood.
Maybe, but it will be a struggle both to
pronounce the "exotic" phonemes and
to understand them. This is a fundamental
problem and it is not going to disappear
just because you ignore it. Your SASXSEK
has both "schwa" and "r." Both are very
difficult to learn.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> I used CVC[VC][VC] roots for SASXSEK...
I have not seen any compound words in your
website (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek/) yet.
You have to play a lot with the compound
words to get an idea which roots are useful
in making the compound words and which are
not. I do not like the fact that some of your
roots are longer than others. For example,
root "karis" (calcium) looks like a compound
word: kar + is (more).
SASXSEK seems to be more complex than it
has to be. My first compound language, Ebubo
(http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/l/ebubo.htm),
was just as bad.
Andrew Nowicki:
> You seem to believe that a long set of roots would make
> all compound words precise. Let us imagine that piano
> is not one of the roots. How would you define it as
> the compound word? Piano is defined in pidgin English
> as "big black box, you hit it in the teeth, it cries."
> Can you come up with a more concise, and yet precise
> definition of the piano?
Dana Nutter wrote:
> No I can't think of any appropriate compound, so I give it a
> unique name "piano" rather than steering someone in the wrong
> direction with some long senseless compound. However, the term
> "keyboard" is often used for electronic pianos and synthesizers.
> Someone who plays this instrument is usually referred to as a
> "keyboard player" although you can also say "pianist".
People invent new things all the time. They have to
give them names. The names can be either roots or
compound words. It is impossible to make precise
and yet concise compound names of all those new things.
You believe that if the compound name is not precise,
it should be a new root and you do not care how long
this new root is. You know how big the English vocabulary
is, so you should not be surprised if it turns out that
your language needs hundreds of thousands of roots.
Suppose that I hear a new SASXSEK word. How do I know
if it is a new root or a compound word? There is only
one way: read all the SASXSEK roots, which means
hundreds of thousands of roots. Now (I hope) you
understand why there should be limited number of roots.
Bob LeChevalier
What do you mean "we are not sure"? It doesn't much matter so long as
you can communicate.
>If the "pocket" is difficult
>to define by other roots and it is useful as the
>root to make other compound words, than "pocket"
>should be the root.
Oversimplified way of putting it, but indeed, that was Lojban's
philosophy. Dr Brown's philosophy was somewhat different.
>"kevyvastafpau" is not bad as far as 4 roots long
>compounds go, but it has one imperfection: you
>had to insert "y" between "kev" and "vas."
That is NOT an "imperfection". It is an intentional part of the
language design. There was neither need nor desire to restrict
compounds to only those that could be made with simple phonotactics.
The rules are simple, and at this point for me completely intuitive
(even though I in fact have done little with the language for more
than a year, I have had no trouble remembering the rules in this
intuitive way.)
>This is common problem with 3 letters long roots.
No. It is an *expected* problem when you have affixes that start and
end in consonants, which we prefer because they are the easier to
remember ones
>> I'm rather glad that we have the root word, since we can
>> use daski to make daskymabru (pocket-mammal) which is of
>> course my quick attempt at "marsupial", which has nothing
>> to do with garments.
>
>Now you speak my language!
>
>marsupial = "pocket mammal" sounds very well, but
>it is just one example of the "pocket" root usage.
>One example would not convince me that this root is
>useful. It takes great amount of time to play with
>different roots to find the most useful ones.
We didn't spend a long time at it.
>daskymabru = daski (pocket) + mabru (mammal)
>This 2 roots long compound is 10 letters long.
>There are no short forms of daski and mabru
>in your old dictionary.
Correct. But so the word is 10 letters long? "Marsupial" is 9
letters long, 10 letters in plural (which in Lojban is the same as the
singular). Same number of syllables too. It is not a common word, so
people would not expect it to be a short word.
>An average non-european adult can easily memorize
>the meaning of vague Ygyde compound words,
Your unsubstantiated opinion isn't worth much.
>but he
>cannot easily pronounce phonemes which are exotic
>to him. (I figured out how to pronounce "r" when I
>was about 15 years old.)
? I thought you were Polish. Polish has an "r". It's different from
the English "r", but so what? Both are allophones of "r" in Lojban.
>Ygyde deals with this
>problem by having Long Ygyde version which is made
>of 11 phoneme groups and 3 letters long roots.
Lojban deals with it by allowing multiple allophones of the
"difficult" sounds, and defining a spacer sound for consonant clusters
that makes them all pronounceable.
>A similar
>gismu (root) translation table in Lojban would
>have 1350 entries unless you invent a way to
>translate parts of the gismu. Suppose that all
>standard gismu are 4 letters long. You can divide
>them into two halves (2x2letters) and translate
>each half into 3 phonemes of the reduced phoneme
>set. The reduced phoneme set would have about
>half as many phonemes as the existing Lojban
>alphabet. This method does not work if the gismu
>is 3 or 5 letters long. You can easily make 1350
>new standard gismu from 4 letters, even if you get
>rid of letter "r" and consonant clusters. In its
>present form Lojban sounds harsh, like German or
>Polish. It needs cosmetic surgery to make it sound
>soft and nice, like Hawaiian or Lilipu. If all
>the 4 letters long gismu start with a consonant
>and end with a vowel (or vice versa), you can
>eliminate consonant clusters in compound words
>(lujvo).
We don't want to eliminate consonant clusters or reduce the phoneme
set. The language works as it is.
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> No. We have root words, and we have affixes used in compounds.
>> They are not "versions" of the same word. Your use of
>> terminology is sloppy.
>
>I believe there are at least two forms of Lojban
>roots (gismu).
No.
>For example, fire = fagri or fag.
Fire is "fagri". "fag" by itself has no meaning. It is a shortened
form used only in compounds.
>Are the long forms necessary?
They are desire able. They are easier to learn than the short
affixes, and the extra sounds provide redundancy that the short forms
lack. Redundancy has proven to be an important issue in Lojban - the
lujvo compounds and the cmavo structure words have a bit too little
redundancy, and in some conditions can be hard to distinguish.
We aren't trying for the shortest or the simplest possible language,
because such a language would be more difficult to use in real life
communication - too many words sounding too much alike, difficult to
tell the breaks between words in fluent speech, and severe impact on
understandability in a noisy environment.
>The long forms may
>be easier to understand in a noisy environment,
>but they make Lojban more complex.
I prefer usability to simplicity.
>Spelling out
>the word "fag" would be easier than remembering
>its long form.
Nonsense. You learn the long form long before you learn the affixes
which aren't that usable to beginners since they ONLY appear in
compounds.
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> No. Affixes are not words and cannot be used
>> except in compounds.
>
>Is this distinction desirable?
Yes.
>If you replace
>the affixes with true roots, there will be
>fewer vocabulary words to remember.
So what? To master a language at the college-educated level, you will
need an active lexicon of around 30,000 meanings and a passive lexicon
closer to 100,000 meanings. How you get to that number doesn't much
matter - that is the number of concepts that the typical college
education person deals with in real-life, and they need whatever
vocabulary is needed to communicate it.
>> They are used because language inventor James Cooke
>> Brown hypothesized that per Zipf's law that people
>> would want commonly used compounds to be shorter than
>> less commonly used words. (I did not exactly share his
>> belief, but stayed true to it in the Lojban redesign).
>
>The 539 most commonly used Ygyde words are
>3 letters long. None of them are compound words.
So?
>PS. Despite our disagreements we have one common
>trait: we openly talk about imperfections of our
>favorite auxlangs. Euroclone supporters never do
>that.
I'm sorry, but I've had no trouble getting people to talk freely about
the cons as well as the pros of their language. It simply takes not
putting people on the defensive.
Bob LeChevalier
>Dana Nutter wrote:
>
>> This is a good example of what I mean. I can't see anyone
>> guessing these to mean "pocket"...
>
>all compound words precise.
That does not seem to be anyone's position. You are again showing
that you do not understand criticisms of your ideas.
The critique is that compound words are inherently IMprecise because
the semantic relationships between the components are not strictly
determined. More roots might make more compounds with fewer
components, but not necessarily more "precise" compounds.
The Lojban community made an effort to come up with rules for
compounds that are more precise in meaning, but does not require all
compounds to follow those rules (these are the ones in Chapter 12 of
our reference grammar).
Chapter 5 of the reference grammar examines the more general issue of
compound ideas (which we call "tanru"). Most Lojban compound ideas
are NOT expressed in a single word, but in multiple words which
language inventor Brown called "metaphors". That word is misleading,
so we call them tanru and thus avoid all English connotations.
At any rate, the chapter goes into all the idiosyncrasies that have to
be accounted for when you have two words modifying each other in a
compound. Sometimes in Lojban, these are expressed in one word,
sometimes in multiple words. I especially commend to Nowicki the last
couple of sections (14-15), which show some unusual compounds
originating in other languages, and thus show just how differently
people from differently languages might interpret compounds.
http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter5.html
Section 16 is the classic exposition of "pretty little girls school"
which is NOT a compound, but one can easily imagine someone thinking
that one of the meanings is THE meaning of the compound, ignoring all
the other possibilities. Nowicki asked why we have separate
(5-letter) forms as well as shorter combining forms for our roots, and
this is why. With separate (long) forms, we can add in the cmavo to
disambiguate these meanings, and thus achieve an arbitrary level of
precision (but as John Cowan has said, "the price of infinite
precision is infinite verbosity"). With the combining forms we choose
only one of the meanings, presumably the most useful one, and make it
a word unto itself, with its own place structure and definition which
is distinct from its components even while being suggested by them.
The discussion at the beginning of chapter 12 (section 2) explains
this with "doghouse" vs "dog house".
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:06:24 +0100, Andrew Nowicki
><and...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>>
>> > Female speakers of Múra-Piraha language use
>> > only nine phonemes.
>>
>> Dana Nutter wrote:
>>
>> > What about the males?
>>
>> Ten phonemes.
>
>Why the difference?
There are many "primitive" languages where the women use a different
dialect than the men. And at least one not-so-primitive: Japanese.
If the words that the women use avoid a particular phoneme, then that
phoneme is not part of their dialect.
> Where can I find documentation on this language?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%E3_language
is a brief summary, which includes the factoids about the number of
phonemes. Pirah~a is also the language that was reported last year to
apparently violate the Sapir Whorf hypothesis (see the PDF cited at
the end of the wiki article for some detailed examples of the
weirdness of this language).
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:16:48 +0100, Andrew Nowicki
><and...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Dana Nutter wrote:
>>
>> > Why the difference? Where can I find documentation on this
>> > language?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%E3_language
>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=MYP
>
>
>Thanks. I had already checked Ethnologue, but was looking for
>more detail. I'm still wondering what makes the men use an
>extra phoneme. It must be something cultural.
It need not. I don't know the difference for this language, but it
could be as simple as the phoneme only occurring in grammatical
endings that are restricted to use by men. Many languages have
grammatical endings based on the gender of some word in the sentence,
but this language may base them on the gender of the speaker.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> Your SASXSEK
> has both "schwa" and "r." Both are very
> difficult to learn.
I have a hard time believing that schwa is a hard phoneme to learn.
I would like to see some studies. As for 'r', the real issue is that
adult speakers of some languages have difficulty discrmininating
between /l/ and /r/ if their native speech does not make such a
distinction. If someone is designing a conIAL from scratch, s/he might
want to consider including only one of the two and allowing the other
to be an allophone.
--
Paul Bartlett
PGP key info in message headers
Andrew Nowicki
> The Lojban community made an effort to come up with rules for
> compounds that are more precise in meaning, but does not require all
> compounds to follow those rules (these are the ones in Chapter 12 of
> our reference grammar).
>
> Chapter 5 of the reference grammar examines the more general issue of
> compound ideas (which we call "tanru"). Most Lojban compound ideas
> are NOT expressed in a single word, but in multiple words which
> language inventor Brown called "metaphors". That word is misleading,
> so we call them tanru and thus avoid all English connotations.
>
> At any rate, the chapter goes into all the idiosyncrasies that have to
> be accounted for when you have two words modifying each other in a
> compound. Sometimes in Lojban, these are expressed in one word,
> sometimes in multiple words. I especially commend to Nowicki the last
> couple of sections (14-15), which show some unusual compounds
> originating in other languages, and thus show just how differently
> people from differently languages might interpret compounds.
>
> http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter5.html
My IQ is 125 -- far above the average, and yet
I do not understand many concepts described
in chapter 5. This entire Lojban publication is a
mess and I do not have the patience to struggle
with it any more. Lojban, in its present form, is
too difficult to learn for children, Nigerians
(average IQ of 67), Ethiopians (average IQ of 63),
Guineans (average IQ of 63), Zimbabweans
(average IQ of 66), and inhabitants of Sierra Leone
(average IQ of 64). If we are talking about Lojban
as an auxlang, we should be talking about simplifying
it. If you have something useful to contribute to this
discussion, please use plain English rather than
obscure Lojban terms.
dana....@gmail.com
> Andrew Nowicki:
>
> > The big problem is what to do with
> > speakers who cannot pronounce the 21 phonemes.
>
> Dana Nutter wrote:
>
> > They don't need to pronounce them exactly. A reasonably
> > close approximation can be understood.
>
> Maybe, but it will be a struggle both to
> pronounce the "exotic" phonemes and
> to understand them. This is a fundamental
> problem and it is not going to disappear
> just because you ignore it. Your SASXSEK
> has both "schwa" and "r." Both are very
> difficult to learn.
I don't know where you get the idea that a schwa is difficult to
pronounce. if anything, it has to be one of the easiest. Still, a
close approximation is enough. As with natural languages, nothing has
to be exact, just close enough to be understood.
You have mentioned this thing about "R" in several posts now. Which "R"
are you referring to? I can thing of several sounds that qualify as
"R" depending on the language you speak: [r] [R] [R\] [r`] [4]. If
that isn't enough, the "L" sounds [l] [L] [l`] [L], etc. are also
allophones. Most languages including at least one of these sounds, or
something close to it. Foreigners who learn English generally don't
learn the proper "R" for English, but usually use the "R" from their
native tongue. The result is an obvious foreign "accent" but but they
are still able to speak without any difficulty understanding them.
Even native speakers don't always pronounce "R" the same depending upon
dialect.
>
> Dana Nutter wrote:
>
> > I used CVC[VC][VC] roots for SASXSEK...
>
> I have not seen any compound words in your
> website (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek/) yet.
There are quite a few compounds. Everything with an "X" in it is a
compound. You must not have been looking too hard.
> You have to play a lot with the compound
> words to get an idea which roots are useful
> in making the compound words and which are
> not. I do not like the fact that some of your
> roots are longer than others. For example,
> root "karis" (calcium) looks like a compound
> word: kar + is (more).
I have played a lot with the compounds. CVC was the original design,
but this didn't give enough options to work with, nor does it make much
sense to waste those small monosyllabic roots on seldom-used concepts
such as scientific or technical terminology. Multisyllable roots are
not at all unusual and shouldn't create a problem.
There are no roots which share the VC suffixes, except for those like
the example above because "r" is phototactically restricted from ending
a word, so it is safe to use. There are still a few situations where
homophones may occur, but context should make their meaning clear.
> SASXSEK seems to be more complex than it
> has to be. My first compound language, Ebubo
> (http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/l/ebubo.htm),
> was just as bad.
What is complex about it? That's a relative term. Complex is
confusing people with 3 different versions of each word and 3 different
sets of rules. Complex is having about 60 different colors when 8-10
are enough, a place where compounding could be a big advantage.
>
> Andrew Nowicki:
>
> > You seem to believe that a long set of roots would make
> > all compound words precise. Let us imagine that piano
> > is not one of the roots. How would you define it as
> > the compound word? Piano is defined in pidgin English
> > as "big black box, you hit it in the teeth, it cries."
> > Can you come up with a more concise, and yet precise
> > definition of the piano?
>
> Dana Nutter wrote:
>
> > No I can't think of any appropriate compound, so I give it a
> > unique name "piano" rather than steering someone in the wrong
> > direction with some long senseless compound. However, the term
> > "keyboard" is often used for electronic pianos and synthesizers.
> > Someone who plays this instrument is usually referred to as a
> > "keyboard player" although you can also say "pianist".
>
> People invent new things all the time. They have to
> give them names. The names can be either roots or
> compound words. It is impossible to make precise
> and yet concise compound names of all those new things.
Yes, it is possible. "Photocopier" ("photo" = light + "copier"). This
was not always the term for this particular invention. They used to
be referred to as "Xerox machines" and "Xerox" was commonly used as a
verb before "photocopy". Here is an example where compounding does
work well, and does create a better understanding.
> You believe that if the compound name is not precise,
> it should be a new root and you do not care how long
> this new root is.
Compounds do not need to be precise, but they shouldn't be confusing,
misleading or senseless like "foam food" or "garment container".
> You know how big the English vocabulary
> is, so you should not be surprised if it turns out that
> your language needs hundreds of thousands of roots.
No, it won't need "hundred of thousands" of roots. It currently has
498 resulting in over 1600 entries in the S-E dictionary and over 2300
entries in the E-S dictionary. The large English vocabulary is there
because of many different reasons. For example let's look at a concept
like "two". English has sever different roots/affixes to apply in
different situations: "two", "bi", "di", "duo", etc. English also has
a lot of synonyms. The influences from Latin, and to some extent
Greek, has left a lot of roots which duplicated the meanings of
existing roots of Anglo-Saxon origin. This doesn't include a flood of
foreign vocabulary which entered the language as it spread around the
world. You are correct about the English vocabulary being bloated.
I really couldn't say how many roots it will eventually have. It will
have as many as it needs, but no more than it needs either. Where it's
possible and practical, compounds will be used. I figure a good
working vocabulary for beginners will require about 10,000 words.
Many will be compounds and some won't.
> Suppose that I hear a new SASXSEK word. How do I know
> if it is a new root or a compound word?
If you had payed any attention at all to what is posted on the website,
it's pretty clear how to identify a compound word because the roots are
generally separated by an "X" /@/ which connects the pieces of the word
while separating the consonants.
> There is only
> one way: read all the SASXSEK roots, which means
> hundreds of thousands of roots. Now (I hope) you
> understand why there should be limited number of roots.
No, nobody needs to read all of the roots. You can look them up
alphabetically in the dictionary, just as you would while learning a
new word any language. Certain vocabulary can obviously be skipped by
certain learners as well. A non-scientist, for example, wouldn't need
to bother with scientific terminology.
Bob LeChevalier
>> At any rate, the chapter goes into all the idiosyncrasies that have to
>> be accounted for when you have two words modifying each other in a
>> compound. Sometimes in Lojban, these are expressed in one word,
>> sometimes in multiple words. I especially commend to Nowicki the last
>> couple of sections (14-15), which show some unusual compounds
>> originating in other languages, and thus show just how differently
>> people from differently languages might interpret compounds.
>>
>> http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter5.html
>
>My IQ is 125 -- far above the average, and yet
>I do not understand many concepts described
>in chapter 5.
There are people with lower IQs that have had no trouble. But then
they did not come in with your preconceptions. But the book was
written as a reference manual and not as a textbook, so it is
comparatively dense in concepts.
>This entire Lojban publication is a mess
In your not so humble opinion.
>and I do not have the patience to struggle with it any more.
Your loss.
>Lojban, in its present form, is too difficult to learn for children,
Children do not learn languages from books; they learn languages from
speakers. How hard they would find Lojban cannot be guessed until we
try.
>Nigerians
>(average IQ of 67), Ethiopians (average IQ of 63),
>Guineans (average IQ of 63), Zimbabweans
>(average IQ of 66), and inhabitants of Sierra Leone
>(average IQ of 64).
I believe that IQ measurements of non-Western cultures are bogus, but
in any event these also will not learn languages from books, much less
reference books.
>If we are talking about Lojban
>as an auxlang, we should be talking about simplifying it.
There is absolutely NO interest in the Lojban community in simplifying
the language, at least in any sense that you would consider
"simplifying".
"Simplifying" artificial languages may make them easier to teach, but
they render them less capable of expressing the sorts of complex
thoughts that literature, science, and the exchange of culture would
require. English is "working" as an auxlang because it is complex
enough to do most of what is needed, and it gloms onto new vocabulary
quickly and easily. It is the opposite of your hyperconstrained
language with minimalist roots.
>If you have something useful to contribute to this
>discussion, please use plain English rather than
>obscure Lojban terms.
That's the problem. "Plain English" is more obscure than Lojban,
because English has so much idiomatic and cultural loading on words
that people don't think about the concepts. You keep wanting to talk
about nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and then you talk about "long and
short roots", and these concepts don't make sense in the Lojban
context - thus you err when you try to translate the Lojban design
into these words you find familiar, but which are utterly WRONG.
Andrew Nowicki
> don't know where you get the idea that a schwa is difficult to
> pronounce. if anything, it has to be one of the easiest. Still, a
> close approximation is enough. As with natural languages, nothing has
> to be exact, just close enough to be understood.
The problem with schwa is that it sounds
similar to bUs and bEd. I would rather use
gYm and slEEpy because these vowels are
more distinct.
> You have mentioned this thing about "R" in several posts
> now. Which "R" are you referring to? I can thing of several
> sounds that qualify as "R" depending on the language you
> speak: [r] [R] [R\] [r`] [4].
True, and this is one of the problems.
The most distinct "R" is the german
form, which is the most difficult
to learn.
> If that isn't enough, the "L" sounds [l] [L] [l`] [L], etc. are also
> allophones. Most languages including at least one of these sounds, or
> something close to it. Foreigners who learn English generally don't
> learn the proper "R" for English, but usually use the "R" from their
> native tongue. The result is an obvious foreign "accent" but but they
> are still able to speak without any difficulty understanding them.
> Even native speakers don't always pronounce "R" the same depending upon
> dialect.
Some people pronounce "R" almost like "L."
"L" like LiLy is easier to pronounce than "R."
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> I have not seen any compound words in your
> website (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek/) yet.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> There are quite a few compounds. Everything with an "X" in it is a
> compound. You must not have been looking too hard.
Your dictionary (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek/dictionary.asp?lang=en)
seems to be empty. Make it plain HTML list so that
everyone can see what is in the dictionary. I would
like to see how long your compound words are.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> I have played a lot with the compounds. CVC was the original design,
> but this didn't give enough options to work with, nor does it make much
> sense to waste those small monosyllabic roots on seldom-used concepts
> such as scientific or technical terminology. Multisyllable roots are
> not at all unusual and shouldn't create a problem.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Suppose that I hear a new SASXSEK word. How do I know
> if it is a new root or a compound word?
Dana Nutter wrote:
> If you had payed any attention at all to what is posted on the website,
> it's pretty clear how to identify a compound word because the roots are
> generally separated by an "X" /@/ which connects the pieces of the word
> while separating the consonants.
This is not true.
> Compound words are formed by using two existing words to
> create a new word, the significant word appearing last.
> The letter X x is inserted when the first portion ends
> with a consonant.
Source: http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek/derivation.asp?lang=en
This means that some compound words do not
have x (schwa) separator and they look like
the root words.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> I really couldn't say how many roots it will eventually have. It will
> have as many as it needs, but no more than it needs either. Where it's
> possible and practical, compounds will be used. I figure a good
> working vocabulary for beginners will require about 10,000 words.
> Many will be compounds and some won't.
10,000 word vocabulary sounds right to me.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> People invent new things all the time. They have to
> give them names. The names can be either roots or
> compound words. It is impossible to make precise
> and yet concise compound names of all those new things.
Dana Nutter wrote:
> Yes, it is possible. "Photocopier" ("photo" = light + "copier"). This
> was not always the term for this particular invention. They used to
> be referred to as "Xerox machines" and "Xerox" was commonly used as a
> verb before "photocopy". Here is an example where compounding does
> work well, and does create a better understanding.
"Photocopier" is not precise because diazo
copier, also known as blueprint copier, also
uses light.
> Compounds do not need to be precise, but they
> shouldn't be confusing, misleading or senseless
> like "foam food" or "garment container".
I have improved the "garment container" but
I still like the bread = "foam food." I like
it because it is short. An adjective could
be added to make it more precise, but I like
using short words for common things.
Andrew Nowicki
> Simplifying" artificial languages may make them easier to teach, but
> they render them less capable of expressing the sorts of complex
> thoughts that literature, science, and the exchange of culture would
> require. English is "working" as an auxlang because it is complex
> enough to do most of what is needed, and it gloms onto new vocabulary
> quickly and easily. It is the opposite of your hyperconstrained
> language with minimalist roots.
It is very unusual for a language to be unable
to express complex thoughts. A much more common
problem is ambiguity, especially in conditional
clauses. Ygyde does have minimalist roots but
aUI has even more minimalist roots. Calling
Ygyde hyperconstrained is not correct because,
unlike Lojban, Ygyde does not have place structure.
Ygyde uses letters "e" and "y" as parentheses
to parse long sentences. (LISP programs use
parentheses the same way. By the way, LISP is a
very high level programming language used in
artificial intelligence and in AutoCAD.)
Rex F. May
wrote on 1/1/05 9:13 PM:
> Andrew Nowicki:
>
>> The big problem is what to do with
>> speakers who cannot pronounce the 21 phonemes.
>
> Dana Nutter wrote:
>
>> They don't need to pronounce them exactly. A reasonably
>> close approximation can be understood.
>
> Maybe, but it will be a struggle both to
> pronounce the "exotic" phonemes and
> to understand them. This is a fundamental
> problem and it is not going to disappear
> just because you ignore it. Your SASXSEK
> has both "schwa" and "r." Both are very
> difficult to learn.
Coincidentally, I'm on the point of introducing a schwa phoneme into Ceqli
to be used exclusively to name letters. Somebody else does that. Is it
Lojban, Lojbab? I've searched around and can't confirm that. It seems to
me that given the standard aeiou group, adding schwa isn't too much of a
burden. Also, I'm thinking of allowing umlaut-o as an allophone of schwa.
This is all in connection with letters as anaphora, a concept that, I think,
goes back to pre-Lojban Loglan. Am I right?
Anyhow, the only large language I can think of that hasn't any kind of schwa
is Spanish. At least the version I learned. Maybe Italian. Anybody know
about that for sure?
As for R, I decided to simply allow any form of R to be used in pronouncing
Ceqli ‹ trill, roll, uvular, whatever.
I think that deciding what should be a root and what should be a compound is
at least as much an art as a science:) And that decision can be modified
over time. For example, 'Computer' isn't a root in any language I know of,
but it's such a basic word now that I concluded we needed a simple,
one-syllable root for it, so I selected the Hindi 'gin', meaning 'calculate'
as the root word for Ceqli. This then gives the possibility for compact
compounds from that root. Gogin (big computer) - mainframe. Stolgin
(table C) desktop computer, genugin (lap computer) - laptop. Ginjal
(computer net) - internet. Etc.
BTW, you can tell a root in Ceqli because it begins with one or more
consonants followed by one or more non-consonants, with the latter defined
as the vowels and semivowels plus the nasals and l and r. That is
aeiouywmnqlr.
Rex F. May
dn2...@nutter.net wrote on 1/1/05 8:28 PM:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:16:48 +0100, Andrew Nowicki
> <and...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Dana Nutter wrote:
>>
>>> Why the difference? Where can I find documentation on this
>>> language?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%E3_language
>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=MYP
>
>
> Thanks. I had already checked Ethnologue, but was looking for
> more detail. I'm still wondering what makes the men use an
> extra phoneme. It must be something cultural. Anyone out there
> have any ideas? What other languages have features like this?
I don't know about phonemes, but vocabulary can certainly have that feature.
Where I grew up, girls said hanky and boys said handkerchief. Don't know
how widespread that is in English.
Rex F. May
dn20...@nutter.net wrote on 1/1/05 2:40 PM:
>
> To some extent this is true, but that doesn't mean the listener
> won't understand. Ever listen to Chinese people speak English?
> They can't disinguish /r/ from /l/ and do have a problem
> distinguishing voiced/unvoiced consonants. Despite all these
> issues, they can make themselves understood.
I keep hearing this, but Mandarin has both an r and an l. Anybody know
about this for sure. Japanese, now, doesn't have both, and J do have that
problem.
Jim Gillogly
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%E3_language
>
> is a brief summary, which includes the factoids about the number of
> phonemes. Pirah~a is also the language that was reported last year to
> apparently violate the Sapir Whorf hypothesis (see the PDF cited at
> the end of the wiki article for some detailed examples of the
> weirdness of this language).
As I understand it, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is (in my layman's
terms) that the language a person thinks in determines how that
person can understand and deal with the world. The Pirah~a
example is fascinating in that the speakers understood that their
innumeracy put them at a disadvantage and tried to correct it by
hiring tutors, but the tutors gave up when they were unable to
teach even one Pirah~a speaker about numbers. Doesn't this
instead *confirm* the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Or are you defining
S-W in a more active sense: that by learning (say) a logic-based
language we can become more logical?
--
Jim Gillogly
Andrew Nowicki
> ...As far as vocablary goes, have you taken any look
> at the Ygyde vocabulary? It has about 60 distinct colors
> to learn, yet is uses compounding to attempt to describe
> some of the most basic concepts.
Ygyde has 64 standard colors evenly covering the
spectrum except very dark colors. 64 colors was
not enough to render some common colors (aquamarine,
salmon, lavender, khaki, chocolate, coral, gold,
and ivory), so I had to use two color blends to
render them. If Ygyde had only a few standard
colors, it would take more than two standard colors
to produce the blends. Women care about colors, and
they, on average, see colors better than men.
I would not use words like "milk," "cat," "dog," and
"pig" as the roots because they are not basic ideas
useful in making compound words. Pigs are very common
now, but they may disappear due to changes in food
production or eating habits. A well designed compound
language should not have roots that may gather dust
in the future. Your aversion to poorly defined compound
words is irrational. If I tell you that "ofyby"
is a 5 letters long root word, you like it, but if
I tell you that it is a compound word, you hate it.
Well, you can call "ofyby" root word if it makes
you happy. I wonder how many English root words
are forgotten, simplified, and distorted compound
words.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:08:25 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%E3_language
>>
>> is a brief summary, which includes the factoids about the number of
>> phonemes. Pirah~a is also the language that was reported last year to
>> apparently violate the Sapir Whorf hypothesis (see the PDF cited at
>> the end of the wiki article for some detailed examples of the
>> weirdness of this language).
>
>As I understand it, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is (in my layman's
>terms) that the language a person thinks in determines how that
>person can understand and deal with the world. The Pirah~a
>example is fascinating in that the speakers understood that their
>innumeracy put them at a disadvantage and tried to correct it by
>hiring tutors, but the tutors gave up when they were unable to
>teach even one Pirah~a speaker about numbers. Doesn't this
>instead *confirm* the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
Sorry, that was a braino on my part when typing.
>Or are you defining
>S-W in a more active sense: that by learning (say) a logic-based
>language we can become more logical?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Coincidentally, I'm on the point of introducing a schwa phoneme into Ceqli
>to be used exclusively to name letters. Somebody else does that. Is it
>Lojban, Lojbab?
Not "exclusively", since schwa is used in names and to link pieces of
lujvo-compounds when necessary. But among cmavo (little words), schwa
exclusively indicates a letter-name.
>This is all in connection with letters as anaphora, a concept that, I think,
>goes back to pre-Lojban Loglan. Am I right?
Yes.