more response to And

[Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!GREBYN.COM!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!lojbab>]

You write:
>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?

Did >I< consider it?  No.  Did JCB do so when inventing the language?
Who knows, but I doubt it.  We did not consider a change in the basic
morphology or word-making algorithm to be within our charter in
redesigning Loglan as Lojban.  JCB never has recorded exactly what was
considered and rejected and why in originally developing same (for which
I've criticized him, but this is spilt milk).  JCB claims to have done
'engineering tests' with several different word making strategies, with
his students at U. of Florida.  The results are unpublished and his
discussion of this sounds like he did not even retain notes of the
experiments and methodology, much less consider publishing them.

>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.

I've never been to Canberra Australia, but would never pronounce it
Camberra, nor do I feel a need to buffer it.  Now I MIGHT mishear one as
the other, but I'm not sure.

Remembering that Lojabn words end in a vowel, as do most Lojban
syllables, I ask you to compare "matcVri" and "matVcri" for each of the
vowels - I don't have any problems.  Now I can see that British and
some American speakers might have trouble with any vowel before "r" in
an unstressed syllable, but that is a different problem, and one we
emphasize in teaching pronunciation:  no schwa or centralizing for
non-descript unstressed vowels.  Can this be taught successfully?
I don't know.

>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

Probably true, but I am talking about a situation where you are talking
to someone in either a difficult environment, or to someone you don't
normally talk to who is evidencing some misunderstanding of your normal
speech.  In such a case, most people make some adjustments in enunciation
and emphasis, and in Lojban, this will include buffering adjustments.

I suspect there is no totally universal phonology of this many sounds that
will not confuse someone of some culture.

> [buffering]

another factor in buffering is length.  The buffer sound will be MUCH
shorter than any vowel, including the hyphen schwa, which itself is
normally shorter duration than other vowels in my speech.  (I think
Lojban will eventually evolve towards being syllable-timed rather than
stress-timed as is English, which will aid this.  But thus far, all the
poets have been English speakers and people trying to translate English
songs whose rhythm is stress-timed, thus fighting this trend.)

>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/

remember that Lojban "h", the apostrophe, is a devoiced vowel glide - it
should never be velarized or even particularly fricative.  Calling the
thing an "h" sound is to make it easier for English speaking
non-linguists, who hear "h" (and are never satisfied by our explanation
of why we use apostrophe instead of "h" for the sound)

>(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/.

The former is why we now teach Lojban 'e' as "fed".  To an Italian who
is having trouble being understood, we might even teach as the vowel of
"fad", since an Italian will not be making an /a/ anywhere near that
sound.  /ou/ is not standard to Lojban without the apostrophe.  What
people do in Lojbanizing names is at their own risk.


>(c) contrasts between a sonorant (glide, liquid, nasal) in syllable nucleus
>and syllable onset, in particular:
>
>(d) /ii/ v. /i/; /uu/ v. /u/.

The divowels are not used in Lojban except in names (normal caveat) and
in VV attitudinals where there is usually a glottal stop preceding and
the pair is pronounced as a semi-vowel/vowel.  This criticism was one of
the things that led to our change from JCB's Loglan versions, in adding
the devoiced glide apostrophe in nearly all VV combinations.

>(e) /s z/ versus /c j/ before /i/.

I can see some language speakers (japanese?) having problems here, but
then Chinese has even more phoneme density in the fricatives, so we had
to compromise somewhere.  I actually have more problems with tongue twister
words with both /c/ and /s/ in them (or adjacent ones: we have a lot of
"she sells sea shells" in Lojban, and this IS a problem).

>(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/

Almost all of these triplets are explicitly forbidden by the morphology.
/tcr/ is not.  But note that the normal syllabification of a triplet is
C/CC, and the CC must be permissible initial (a very restricted set).
The main risk here is with people for whom an affricate like /tc/ or
/ts/ is considered a single phoneme in the native language.  The
solution is to syllabify between the two phonemes comprising the
affricate in a triplet.

>(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/

In gismu all of the above are never in sole opposition.  In lujvo there
is a designed workaround (use longer forms) that avoids sole oppositions
when needed.  This leaves only cmavo as places where confusion can occur
on the basis of single consonants, and we tried to ensure some
grammatical or usage clues in these, where possible, to minimize
confusion.

>But given that Lojbanists are keener on getting the language spoken than
>perfected, my criticisms do not of course warrant changing the system.

After 36 years, isn't it about time to see if it works rather than to
endlessly theorize how it might be better when there is so little data
on speech problems in planned languages (or second languages in
general).  Lojban is a scientific tool.  We will learn from those who
speak it.  My complaint with conlang developers who do not intend their
language to be spoken is that there truly is no way to evaluate the
result aesthetically or linguistically, except to apply theories that
aren't all that solid in the irregular NL world.

>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've heard data that suggests that even in optimal conditions, our
hearing is so inaccurate that we may miss half the phonemes, and
reconstruct the rest thru context.  A computer won't miss phonemes, but
will have different problems.  So the question "unambiguous to observer
___?" is in order before evaluating.  Lojban has made changes from JCB's
original design, and indeed JCB has made his own changes, not always for
the better.  Lojban is still algorithmically audiovisually isomorphic,
although JCB's current language is not.  In pragmatic situations, we
will not find out until we have fluent speakers.  In any event though, I
think Lojban will turn out to be closer to the ideal than most or all
NLs or other ALs that are actually spoken by fluent speakers.

>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).

The unambiguous morphology also counts for something.  JCB has
emphasized the phonology, which has raised expectations.  But then
almost every language instruction program tends to start with
pronunciation, thereby raising expectations and dashing hoped when
people realize after years of study that they can never truly sound like
a native.

But an AL has no native speakers to hold up as a standard or ideal.  I
try to de-emphasize pronunciation with beginners, presuming that long before
people become fluent in the grammar and vocabulary, they will have developed
an accent that is understandable to others.

I should note in passing that I have a totally different accent in my
bits of fluent Lojban speech than in my normal pedagogical speaking
style.  I discovered this while working with Logflash.  When I said the
words fast as they flashed by, I started developing what was even to me
a noticeable eastern European voice quality.  I seldom achieve this
speed even in fast reading of text because the language is still clumsy
for me, but the faster I go, the more Slavic I sound, even to me.  I
should then note that Slavic language have many more consonant cluster
than Lojban or English, and yet are well understood.

The bottom line:  let's find out.  We will avoid the exaggerated claims
for the most part, and if anything you are accusing us of insufficient
prescription on vowels and buffers, so that seems to be a non-problem.

But please do not gag yourself should you have new ideas or insights as
you learn more, or of course as others after you raise the same
questions over and over.

lojbab@grebyn.com