Isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru
94 views
Skip to first unread message
selpa'i
Apr 3, 2013, 1:28:48 PM4/3/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
coi do'u
I have a question regarding audio-visual isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru.
The dialogues in this book often don't indicate speaker changes (just as
in the original). This is fine when reading the book, because one can
see the "—" sign and the line breaks. However, when reading such a
dialogue out loud, it isn't always so clear to the listener.
Here is a small excerpt:
— .i sa'u mi ty ponse
— .i xu do ponse lo tarci
— .i go'i
— .i ku'i mi pu zgana lo nolraitru noi ...
— .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
— .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
— .i prali mi fa lo nu mi ricfu
— .i ma do prali lo nu do ricfu
— .i lo nu mi te vecnu lo drata tarci va'o lo nu da tolcri ty
So it looks like there is a character/layout choice here that has
meaning (i.e. it marks a speaker change), but that isn't realized in
speech. This is unsatisfactory for me. The question then is what to do
about it.
Should "—" here be considered a "forethought" pair of «lu li'u»? I'm
tending towards reading it that way (should I ever get around to making
a complete recording of this wonderful book).
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
I have a question regarding audio-visual isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru.
The dialogues in this book often don't indicate speaker changes (just as
in the original). This is fine when reading the book, because one can
see the "—" sign and the line breaks. However, when reading such a
dialogue out loud, it isn't always so clear to the listener.
Here is a small excerpt:
— .i sa'u mi ty ponse
— .i xu do ponse lo tarci
— .i go'i
— .i ku'i mi pu zgana lo nolraitru noi ...
— .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
— .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
— .i prali mi fa lo nu mi ricfu
— .i ma do prali lo nu do ricfu
— .i lo nu mi te vecnu lo drata tarci va'o lo nu da tolcri ty
So it looks like there is a character/layout choice here that has
meaning (i.e. it marks a speaker change), but that isn't realized in
speech. This is unsatisfactory for me. The question then is what to do
about it.
Should "—" here be considered a "forethought" pair of «lu li'u»? I'm
tending towards reading it that way (should I ever get around to making
a complete recording of this wonderful book).
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
iesk
Apr 3, 2013, 4:26:07 PM4/3/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Le mercredi 3 avril 2013 19:28:48 UTC+2, selpa'i a écrit :
However, when reading such a
dialogue out loud, it isn't always so clear to the listener.
.i zo'o ganai re bacru cu tcidu gi mapti lo ranmrxisoformismaudiovisuele
It complies with audio-visual isomorphism if one has it read by two speakers. ;)
selpa'i
Apr 6, 2013, 8:30:52 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la selpa'i cu cusku di'e
> Should "�" here be considered a "forethought" pair of �lu li'u�? I'm
> tending towards reading it that way.
I'd really like to get some opinions on this.
Would you prefer
� .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
� .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
to be _read_ as:
a)
or b)
.i �lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u�
.i �lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u�
or c)
some other way (in which case I'd like to know how).
> coi do'u
>
> I have a question regarding audio-visual isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru.
> [... li'o sa'a]
>
> I have a question regarding audio-visual isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru.
> Should "�" here be considered a "forethought" pair of �lu li'u�? I'm
> tending towards reading it that way.
I'd really like to get some opinions on this.
Would you prefer
� .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
� .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
to be _read_ as:
a)
.i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
.i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
(that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
.i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
or b)
.i �lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u�
.i �lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u�
or c)
some other way (in which case I'd like to know how).
Braden Shepherdson
Apr 6, 2013, 8:52:33 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I have in the past used a text-to-speech engine (for English) to make poor man's audiobooks of fanfiction and similar for listening on road trips. The better engines insert good pauses between sequences of quotations, but it's still sometimes hard to tell, and it makes the story difficult to follow, especially if the back-and-forth is swift.
I would prefer your option b) over a).
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:30 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
la selpa'i cu cusku di'e> [... li'o sa'a]
coi do'u
I have a question regarding audio-visual isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru.
Should "—" here be considered a "forethought" pair of «lu li'u»? I'm
tending towards reading it that way.
I'd really like to get some opinions on this.
Would you prefer
— .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
— .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
to be _read_ as:
a)(that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
.i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
.i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
or b)
.i «lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u»
.i «lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u»
or c)
some other way (in which case I'd like to know how).
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
la gleki
Apr 6, 2013, 8:55:01 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
mi nelci lo nuxalk tasmi si tadji noi srana zo'oi kʷ poi simsa lu sei li'o li'u
i sa'u pilno lu "- sei se cusku li'o" li'u ja no da
i va'i lo pamoi se stidi cu zmadu
v4hn
Apr 6, 2013, 9:43:20 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 02:30:52PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> Would you prefer
>
> — .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
>
> or b)
> .i «lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u»
> .i «lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u»
How does this solve your problem?
It still doesn't properly indicate a speaker change and adds additional
words. I don't see any reason to prefer that to your other proposal.
If you want to indicate the speaker change, you should do it properly with something
like {sei ny cusku} and that would add a bulk of text not present in the original.
> a)
> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
> .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
>
> (that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
I agree with iesk here: If you write down a stream of spoken text,
you should also include voice hints:
<serious low-pitched voice> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
<ignorant child voice> .i ma do prali lonu do ponse lo tarci
Now, there _is_ an indication of speaker change.
v4hn
> Would you prefer
>
> — .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
> — .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
>
> to be _read_ as:
>
>
> or b)
> .i «lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u»
> .i «lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u»
How does this solve your problem?
It still doesn't properly indicate a speaker change and adds additional
words. I don't see any reason to prefer that to your other proposal.
If you want to indicate the speaker change, you should do it properly with something
like {sei ny cusku} and that would add a bulk of text not present in the original.
> a)
> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
> .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
>
> (that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
you should also include voice hints:
<serious low-pitched voice> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
<ignorant child voice> .i ma do prali lonu do ponse lo tarci
Now, there _is_ an indication of speaker change.
v4hn
selpa'i
Apr 6, 2013, 9:51:20 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la .van. cu cusku di'e
begins and ends, which was not possible before. Adding extra information
like {sei ny cusku} is rather out of the question.
>> a)
>> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
>> .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
>>
>> (that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
>
> I agree with iesk here: If you write down a stream of spoken text,
> you should also include voice hints:
>
> <serious low-pitched voice> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
> <ignorant child voice> .i ma do prali lonu do ponse lo tarci
>
> Now, there _is_ an indication of speaker change.
It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed to match.
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 02:30:52PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
>> Would you prefer
>>
>> — .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
>> — .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
>>
>> to be _read_ as:
>>
>> or b)
>> .i «lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u»
>> .i «lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u»
>
> How does this solve your problem?
> It still doesn't properly indicate a speaker change and adds additional
> words. I don't see any reason to prefer that to your other proposal.
> If you want to indicate the speaker change, you should do it properly with something
> like {sei ny cusku} and that would add a bulk of text not present in the original.
It solves the problem to the extent that we now know where each quote
>> Would you prefer
>>
>> — .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
>> — .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
>>
>> to be _read_ as:
>>
>> or b)
>> .i «lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u»
>> .i «lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u»
>
> How does this solve your problem?
> It still doesn't properly indicate a speaker change and adds additional
> words. I don't see any reason to prefer that to your other proposal.
> If you want to indicate the speaker change, you should do it properly with something
> like {sei ny cusku} and that would add a bulk of text not present in the original.
begins and ends, which was not possible before. Adding extra information
like {sei ny cusku} is rather out of the question.
>> a)
>> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
>> .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
>>
>> (that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
>
> I agree with iesk here: If you write down a stream of spoken text,
> you should also include voice hints:
>
> <serious low-pitched voice> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
> <ignorant child voice> .i ma do prali lonu do ponse lo tarci
>
> Now, there _is_ an indication of speaker change.
selpa'i
Apr 6, 2013, 9:52:14 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la gleki cu cusku di'e
> mi nelci lo nuxalk
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nux%C3%A1lk_language> tasmi si tadji noi
> mi nelci lo nuxalk
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nux%C3%A1lk_language> tasmi si tadji noi
> srana zo'oi kʷ poi simsa lu sei li'o li'u
> i sa'u pilno lu "- sei se cusku li'o" li'u ja no da
> i va'i lo pamoi se stidi cu zmadu
ckire do lo nu jungau lo du'u do ma kau jinvi
> i sa'u pilno lu "- sei se cusku li'o" li'u ja no da
> i va'i lo pamoi se stidi cu zmadu
selpa'i
Apr 6, 2013, 9:55:24 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la'o me. Braden Shepherdson .me cusku di'e
Lojban. The sentences themselves need to contain some indication.
> I would prefer your option b) over a).
Noted, thanks.
> I have in the past used a text-to-speech engine (for English) to make
> poor man's audiobooks of fanfiction and similar for listening on road
> trips. The better engines insert good pauses between sequences of
> quotations, but it's still sometimes hard to tell, and it makes the
> story difficult to follow, especially if the back-and-forth is swift.
Yes, that's what I'm afraid of. And such "pauses" are also not part of
> poor man's audiobooks of fanfiction and similar for listening on road
> trips. The better engines insert good pauses between sequences of
> quotations, but it's still sometimes hard to tell, and it makes the
> story difficult to follow, especially if the back-and-forth is swift.
Lojban. The sentences themselves need to contain some indication.
> I would prefer your option b) over a).
Jorge Llambías
Apr 6, 2013, 10:04:49 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:51 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
la .van. cu cusku di'e
It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed to match.I agree with iesk here: If you write down a stream of spoken text,
you should also include voice hints:
<serious low-pitched voice> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
<ignorant child voice> .i ma do prali lonu do ponse lo tarci
Now, there _is_ an indication of speaker change.
Since neither the "—" in the written form, nor the change in voice in the spoken form are part of the Lojban text, where is the mismatch? They are both extratextual enhancements to aid in comprehension. If you plan to read it in a monotone voice it will be hard to follow, but it would also be hard to follow for a reader if the text was written without any spaces and line-breaks.
You could also read the "—" as "ni'o" or some new member of NIhO that meant "new speaker", in which case the "—" would become part of the text.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
selpa'i
Apr 6, 2013, 10:17:15 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
emphasis etc. It can mark all those things with words (UI and ba'e for
example). It also has the tools to be explicit about quotes (lu li'u).
So in my opinion, a language like Lojban should not have to rely on how
the text is read out loud by the speaker. It can help to use different
voices, but it should not be necessary to do so.
The problem here is that the original French doesn't indicate anything
either, but then again it's a natural language. Still, it kind of makes
it okay for the Lojban do also not indicate it. I think I'm no longer in
favor of the lu li'u idea.
> You could also read the "�" as "ni'o" or some new member of NIhO that
> meant "new speaker", in which case the "�" would become part of the text.
Good point. I'd prefer {ni'o} over a new cmavo. This might be the best
solution so far.
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:51 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de
> <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> la .van. cu cusku di'e
>
> I agree with iesk here: If you write down a stream of spoken text,
> you should also include voice hints:
>
> <serious low-pitched voice> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e
> turni .i mutce frica
> <ignorant child voice> .i ma do prali lonu do ponse lo tarci
>
> Now, there _is_ an indication of speaker change.
>
>
> It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed to match.
>
>
> Since neither the "�" in the written form, nor the change in voice in
> <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> la .van. cu cusku di'e
>
> I agree with iesk here: If you write down a stream of spoken text,
> you should also include voice hints:
>
> <serious low-pitched voice> .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e
> turni .i mutce frica
> <ignorant child voice> .i ma do prali lonu do ponse lo tarci
>
> Now, there _is_ an indication of speaker change.
>
>
> It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed to match.
>
>
> the spoken form are part of the Lojban text, where is the mismatch? They
> are both extratextual enhancements to aid in comprehension. If you plan
> to read it in a monotone voice it will be hard to follow, but it would
> also be hard to follow for a reader if the text was written without any
> spaces and line-breaks.
The idea is that Lojban doesn't rely on tone of voice or special
> are both extratextual enhancements to aid in comprehension. If you plan
> to read it in a monotone voice it will be hard to follow, but it would
> also be hard to follow for a reader if the text was written without any
> spaces and line-breaks.
emphasis etc. It can mark all those things with words (UI and ba'e for
example). It also has the tools to be explicit about quotes (lu li'u).
So in my opinion, a language like Lojban should not have to rely on how
the text is read out loud by the speaker. It can help to use different
voices, but it should not be necessary to do so.
The problem here is that the original French doesn't indicate anything
either, but then again it's a natural language. Still, it kind of makes
it okay for the Lojban do also not indicate it. I think I'm no longer in
favor of the lu li'u idea.
> You could also read the "�" as "ni'o" or some new member of NIhO that
> meant "new speaker", in which case the "�" would become part of the text.
Good point. I'd prefer {ni'o} over a new cmavo. This might be the best
solution so far.
iesk
Apr 6, 2013, 10:51:26 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I am undecided on which way I would prefer. Option b) is probably clearer than option a). And 'forethought {lu}/{li'u}' *is* a sensible interpretation of the function of those dashes.
However:
Lojban grammar does (as far as I know) *not* provide a way to indicate voice inflection [voice modulation? English is an L2 to me] in written text. Isomorphism has its limits. I'm quite sure that that has been clear from the beginning.
The assumption
(LASELPAhI:)>It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed to match.
could easily be a first step in the wrong direction---leading to the 'Lojban has to be spoken in a monotonous computer voice' fallacy, couldn't it?
(The fallacy I have in mind is:
Lojban has a.v. isomorphism.
Lojban has no voice-modulation cmavo or whatever.
Thus, Lojban is to be read without voice modulation.)
I don't see why reading (interpreting) the text with appropriate voice inflection would't be a Lojban performance. And that, I opine, could be the most pleasing kind of performance, to the listener.
By the way:
If we do take isomorphism (in the limited-thus-sensible sense) seriously, don't we then have to ask what it means that the text *doesn't* indicate speaker change by means of {lu}/{li'u} (while it could as well do so)? I mean, supposing of course that the translator did that on purpose and not by oversight, it could be a stylistically slightly weird text---like an English text without punctuation.
selpa'i
Apr 6, 2013, 11:03:39 AM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la .iesk. cu cusku di'e
should technically be okay to pronounce "mi do viska" with a rising
intonation or to have an expressionless face while saying ".u'i sai" or
even to smile while saying "ui nai". You can scream or whisper, but it
has no impact.
I'm not saying you must pronounce the text in a monotone voice; I'm
saying voice shouldn't matter one way or the other.
> I don't see why reading (interpreting) the text with appropriate
> voice inflection would't be a Lojban performance. And that, I opine,
> could be the most pleasing kind of performance, to the listener.
It would be, yes.
My policy usually is: If the necessary words are there (e.g. ba'e, UI,
.etc), then you may or may not choose to do something with your
voice/pronunciation that reflects those words, but the text mustn't lose
any information if you subtract from it all those nuances in your speech
pattern.
> By the way: If we do take isomorphism (in the limited-thus-sensible
> sense) seriously, don't we then have to ask what it means that the
> text *doesn't* indicate speaker change by means of {lu}/{li'u} (while
> it could as well do so)? I mean, supposing of course that the
> translator did that on purpose and not by oversight, it could be a
> stylistically slightly weird text---like an English text without
> punctuation.
This one I think is much easier to answer. All you need to do is imagine
an implicit "sei X cusku" in the appropriate places. This is perfectly
fine, but as noted, it can be hard to follow in some places. The burden
is on the reader (and their perfomance) moreso than on the listener.
> I am undecided on which way I would prefer. Option b) is probably
> clearer than option a). And 'forethought {lu}/{li'u}' *is* a sensible
> interpretation of the function of those dashes.
>
> However: Lojban grammar does (as far as I know) *not* provide a way
> to indicate voice inflection [voice modulation? English is an L2 to
> me] in written text. Isomorphism has its limits. I'm quite sure that
> that has been clear from the beginning.
>
> The assumption
>
> (LASELPAhI:)>It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed
> to match.
>
> could easily be a first step in the wrong direction---leading to the
> 'Lojban has to be spoken in a monotonous computer voice' fallacy,
> couldn't it?
>
> (The fallacy I have in mind is: Lojban has a.v. isomorphism. Lojban
> has no voice-modulation cmavo or whatever. Thus, Lojban is to be read
> without voice modulation.)
I agree that this would be a bad conclusion. However, in Lojban it
> clearer than option a). And 'forethought {lu}/{li'u}' *is* a sensible
> interpretation of the function of those dashes.
>
> However: Lojban grammar does (as far as I know) *not* provide a way
> to indicate voice inflection [voice modulation? English is an L2 to
> me] in written text. Isomorphism has its limits. I'm quite sure that
> that has been clear from the beginning.
>
> The assumption
>
> (LASELPAhI:)>It is, but it's not Lojban. Text and speech is supposed
> to match.
>
> could easily be a first step in the wrong direction---leading to the
> 'Lojban has to be spoken in a monotonous computer voice' fallacy,
> couldn't it?
>
> (The fallacy I have in mind is: Lojban has a.v. isomorphism. Lojban
> has no voice-modulation cmavo or whatever. Thus, Lojban is to be read
> without voice modulation.)
should technically be okay to pronounce "mi do viska" with a rising
intonation or to have an expressionless face while saying ".u'i sai" or
even to smile while saying "ui nai". You can scream or whisper, but it
has no impact.
I'm not saying you must pronounce the text in a monotone voice; I'm
saying voice shouldn't matter one way or the other.
> I don't see why reading (interpreting) the text with appropriate
> voice inflection would't be a Lojban performance. And that, I opine,
> could be the most pleasing kind of performance, to the listener.
My policy usually is: If the necessary words are there (e.g. ba'e, UI,
.etc), then you may or may not choose to do something with your
voice/pronunciation that reflects those words, but the text mustn't lose
any information if you subtract from it all those nuances in your speech
pattern.
> By the way: If we do take isomorphism (in the limited-thus-sensible
> sense) seriously, don't we then have to ask what it means that the
> text *doesn't* indicate speaker change by means of {lu}/{li'u} (while
> it could as well do so)? I mean, supposing of course that the
> translator did that on purpose and not by oversight, it could be a
> stylistically slightly weird text---like an English text without
> punctuation.
an implicit "sei X cusku" in the appropriate places. This is perfectly
fine, but as noted, it can be hard to follow in some places. The burden
is on the reader (and their perfomance) moreso than on the listener.
iesk
Apr 6, 2013, 12:00:38 PM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la selpa'i:
>I'm not saying you must pronounce the
>text in amonotone voice; I'm saying voice
>I'm not saying you must pronounce the
>shouldn't matter one way or the other.
>but the text mustn't lose any information
>if you subtract from it all those nuances
>in your speech pattern.
I'm not usually into relativising everything to death, but, clearly, that is an ideal---or a chimaera. An absence, too, of particular nuances in your speech pattern is information.
I think I understand what you are saying, though.
>All you need to do is imagine an
>implicit "sei X cusku" in the
>appropriate places.
O.K. But I mean, if Lojban 'standard procedure', or literature convention, were to use {lu}/{li'u}, then their intentional non-usage per se would be potentially meaningful/interpretable. (This is somehow parallel to the stuff above about [absence of] voice patterns.)
The question is: Is there an established Lojban standard procedure for texts like lo cmalu noltru? Possibly, I don't read enough Lojban to know. (Hopefully will.)
John E Clifford
Apr 6, 2013, 12:16:01 PM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
So far as I can tell (and/or recall) there are three practices, possibly dictated in part by texts being translated or those most familiar to the author: full quotes as object of a verb of speaking, full quotes with a parenthetical verb of speaking, no quotes and separate lines -- and often no verbs of speaking after a conversation gets started, at least with with only two interlocutors. I assume that in all cases the purported isomorphism is with the speakers not the speech.
From: iesk <pa....@gmx.de>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru
From: iesk <pa....@gmx.de>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Isomorphism in lo cmalu noltru
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
MorphemeAddict
Apr 6, 2013, 12:30:03 PM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I suggest a cmavo that means "different speaker" or something similar. {ni'o} doesn't really do this.
stevo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
iesk
Apr 6, 2013, 12:40:15 PM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
BTW I somehow totally overlooked xorxes's post, with which I agree.
Le samedi 6 avril 2013 16:04:49 UTC+2, xorxes a écrit :
I conclude that spoken Lojban is indeed not (and cannot be) the same communication system as written Lojban, similar to the situation with 'normal' languages, and that a.v. isomorphism only means that the overlapping part is arguably greater than in 'normal' languages. ;)
Le samedi 6 avril 2013 16:04:49 UTC+2, xorxes a écrit :
Since neither the "—" in the written form, nor the change in voice in the spoken form are part of the Lojban text, where is the mismatch? They are both extratextual enhancements to aid in comprehension. If you plan to read it in a monotone voice it will be hard to follow, but it would also be hard to follow for a reader if the text was written without any spaces and line-breaks.You could also read the "—" as "ni'o" or some new member of NIhO that meant "new speaker", in which case the "—" would become part of the text.mu'o mi'e xorxes
I conclude that spoken Lojban is indeed not (and cannot be) the same communication system as written Lojban, similar to the situation with 'normal' languages, and that a.v. isomorphism only means that the overlapping part is arguably greater than in 'normal' languages. ;)
v4hn
Apr 6, 2013, 12:40:55 PM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:30:03PM -0400, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> I suggest a cmavo that means "different speaker" or something similar.
> {ni'o} doesn't really do this.
No, but in some cases in lo cmalu noltru it says:
> I suggest a cmavo that means "different speaker" or something similar.
> {ni'o} doesn't really do this.
ny cusku di'e
<lo selcusku>
<lo terspuda>
...
At least {ni'o} ba'e could mark the end of the utterance refered to by {di'e}.
v4hn
guskant
Apr 6, 2013, 9:11:06 PM4/6/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
For your information, I did c) for my show at ponjo jbonunsla:
I made one tap when a different speaker begins speaking, and two taps when the speaker finishes speaking.
The tap sound was made with my tap shoes.
I agree however with xorxes' idea of creating a new member of NIhO that means "different speaker".
la gleki
Apr 7, 2013, 2:25:03 AM4/7/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 8:30:03 PM UTC+4, stevo wrote:
I suggest a cmavo that means "different speaker" or something similar. {ni'o} doesn't really do this.
If there are three or more speakers the ambiguity will continue to exist and this new cmavo will again be useless.
As for reading the story aloud I'm strongly for using {sei se cusku li'o}. However, if this is gonna be kinda radio theater then there is the need in two or more actors with different voices. I can absolutely see no problem here.
If we are to create that new cmavo then it is supposed to be used in speech which is nonsense.
Michael Turniansky
May 1, 2013, 10:58:58 AM5/1/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:11 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd really like to get some opinions on this.� .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
Would you prefer
� .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci.i �lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u�
to be _read_ as:
a)
.i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
.i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
(that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
or b)
.i �lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u�
or c)
some other way (in which case I'd like to know how).
For your information, I did c) for my show at ponjo jbonunsla:I made one tap when a different speaker begins speaking, and two taps when the speaker finishes speaking.The tap sound was made with my tap shoes.
doi guskant
lo ve snada'i cu se smuni la'e di'u do uasai vau xu i pe'i lo go'i mi cladu savru je fanza .i sotpa'a lo nu do puza ciksi da'i .i mi pu na jimpe .i la'aru'e lo ni se fanza cu se jdika mi va'o lo nu da'i go'e
-gejyspa
guskant
Oct 19, 2014, 11:18:22 AM10/19/14
to loj...@googlegroups.com
je'e la gejyspa ko fraxu mi lo nu fanza do kei .e lo nu spuda lerci
i lo skina no'u la remo'o bripre gau mi co'u gubni
ija'ebo noda ba'a ka'e te skina fi ra vau .o'udai
i lo se ciska po'o cu ca gubni to zoi url
http://www.lojban.org/corpus/show/lei%20cmalu%20narge%20.e%20le%20cmana%20mlatu
url toi
Gleki Arxokuna
Oct 19, 2014, 12:21:47 PM10/19/14
to loj...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-19 19:18 GMT+04:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:
Le mercredi 1 mai 2013 23:58:58 UTC+9, gejyspa a écrit :On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:11 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd really like to get some opinions on this.� .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
Would you prefer
� .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci.i �lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u�
to be _read_ as:
a)
.i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
.i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
(that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
or b)
.i �lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u�
or c)
some other way (in which case I'd like to know how).
For your information, I did c) for my show at ponjo jbonunsla:
na kakne lo ka zgana
I made one tap when a different speaker begins speaking, and two taps when the speaker finishes speaking.The tap sound was made with my tap shoes.
doi guskantlo ve snada'i cu se smuni la'e di'u do uasai vau xu i pe'i lo go'i mi cladu savru je fanza .i sotpa'a lo nu do puza ciksi da'i .i mi pu na jimpe .i la'aru'e lo ni se fanza cu se jdika mi va'o lo nu da'i go'e-gejyspa
je'e la gejyspa ko fraxu mi lo nu fanza do kei .e lo nu spuda lerci
i lo skina no'u la remo'o bripre gau mi co'u gubni
ija'ebo noda ba'a ka'e te skina fi ra vau .o'udai
i lo se ciska po'o cu ca gubni to zoi url
http://www.lojban.org/corpus/show/lei%20cmalu%20narge%20.e%20le%20cmana%20mlatu
url toi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
guskant
Oct 19, 2014, 8:28:02 PM10/19/14
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Le lundi 20 octobre 2014 01:21:47 UTC+9, la gleki a écrit :
2014-10-19 19:18 GMT+04:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:
Le mercredi 1 mai 2013 23:58:58 UTC+9, gejyspa a écrit :On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:11 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd really like to get some opinions on this.� .i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
Would you prefer
� .i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci.i �lu lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica li'u�
to be _read_ as:
a)
.i lo nolraitru cu ponse nagi'e turni .i mutce frica
.i ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci
(that is, no indication of speaker change whatsoever)
or b)
.i �lu ma do prali lo nu do ponse lo tarci li'u�
or c)
some other way (in which case I'd like to know how).
For your information, I did c) for my show at ponjo jbonunsla:na kakne lo ka zgana
gau mi go'i mu'i la'e da'e i ko tolmo'i fi la re mo'o bripre
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages