Re: response to And Rosta

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!ucleaar>]

Thanks to Lojbab for a courteous response.

> 4) Re kando/kandi, the final vowel is significant in the recognition score
> algorithm that generated the words.  "kandi" for example got score from
> "the 'di' from "dim", because we mapped the Englsih [I] to Lojban i for
> recognition algorithm purposes.
Did you consider that _kandi_ requires 25% more memory, effort in learning,
or whatever, than _kanda_, with final vowel copied from the stem, and then
decide that the _di_ calling to mind _dim_ (!!) was a greater asset to
memory?

> I see And's comments on the morphology NOT as a true change but another
> way of looking at the existing design - that there is potentially a
> buffer vowel between all clusters such that there are no consonant
> clusters. But even if so, I don;t speak the language this way noramlly,
> and don;t expectt to, and I don;t see it as all that useful a concept in
> teaching the language.
I did indeed intend it mainly just as a different way of looking at
current Lojban, but unless I am taught (by teacher or experience) to
pronounce /-nb-/ as /-nVb-/ it will come out as /-mb-/. /tcVr/ and /tVcr/
may well not be distinct unless buffered.

> 3) The exact buffer sound to be used should be dependent on the speaker, the
> listener, and the environment.  That is why we don't specify the sound other
> than to say it is a non-Lojban vowel.  If I am talking to And, and he is
> hearing my [I] as "i", then I must shade that sound more towards [y].  This
> is pragmatic phonology.
This level of phonology isn't pragmatic. Once you are fluent, you will always
use the same buffer vowel. Phonological processes are done unconsciously
(although I can deliberately start speaking with, say, a Liverpudlian accent,
once I begin speaking I don't consciously tell myself to velarize everything,
or whatever). Once I am fluent (supposition, this) I will be used
to listening out for Lojban vowels. There will be much variation among
speakers as to how vowels are pronounced, so most of the vowel space will be
occupied by one of the 6 non-buffer vowels. This is why I reckoned only [y]
would be adequately distinct. But [y] is a lousy buffer: buffering in
natural language typically uses the most unmarked vowel in the system and
is inserted/deleted unconsciously, so were Lojban to require conscious
insertion of [y] or whatever vowel carefully adjusted according to taste,
the language would be making extreme demands of its speakers.

It's not just the buffer vowel that makes the phonology wobbly: other iffy
elements include:
(a) /x/ contrasting with /h/ when adjacent to /i u o/
(b) /e/ versus /ei/ and /o/ versus /ou/. I can perfectly well hear the
difference between _fed_ versus _fade_, and when I speak Italian, Italians
can tell whether I'm saying /se/ or /sei/, but when I hear Italians, I
can't tell whether they're saying /se/ or /sei/.
(c) contrasts between a sonorant (glide, liquid, nasal) in syllable nucleus
and syllable onset, in particular:
(d) /ii/ v. /i/; /uu/ v. /u/.
(e) /s z/ versus /c j/ before /i/.
(f) possibly the following non-salient contrasts are forbidden or don't arise:
    /mps/ v. /ms/       /mbz/ v. /mz/       /mpt/ v. /mt/       /mbd/ v. /md/
    /mpc/ v. /mc/       /mbj/ v. /mj/       /nts/ v. /ns/       /ndz/ v. /nz/
    /ntc/ v. /nc/       /ndj/ v. /nj/       /tcr/ v. /tr/       /djr/ v. /dr/
(g) There are a number of further problems that couldn't be avoided without a
drastic reduction of the segmental inventory:
    /r/ versus /l/
    /b/ versus /v/
    /p t k/ versus /b d g/

But given that Lojbanists are keener on getting the language spoken than
perfected, my criticisms do not of course warrant changing the system.
We'll each speak with a different accent, with slightly different phonemic
inventories, be consequently exposed to a confusing signal, but probably
understand each other perfectly well by relying on (pragmatic) context:
British and Americans speaking English understand each other okay, and I
don't think Lojban would be worse. I understand that J.C.Brown invented
the phonology, for which I cannot think he is to be thanked; his claim
for audiovisual isomorphism and an unambiguous signal (for Loglan, but
I think its phonology is pretty much the same) are spurious.

I think it's reasonable to conclude (4) on the basis of (1-3):
 (1) Lojban values a robust and homophone-less signal.
 (2) Most people can learn a non-native phonology only imperfectly.
 (3) All or most Lojban speakers will be non-native.
 (4) Therefore the phonology should be resistant to errors made by non-natives.
I think Lojban has tried for (4) but not done nearly as well as it might
have - probably because it was invented by largely monolingual English
speakers. Still, no-one is attracted to Lojban for its phonology - it's the
unambiguous syntax & the semantics that are its real assets. So long as
Lojban doesn't make exaggerated claims about the phonology and excessive
prescriptions for it, I shouldn't criticize (& will therefore endeavour to
gag myself on the subject henceforth).

                                ----------
         di'u cu cusku fa le binxo be fe le smaji bei fa la .and.
                  to zoi       canti canti       zoi toi
                                   fa'o