Re: Difficult language ideas

li [Philip Newton] mi tulis la

> On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <palomaverde@...> wrote:
> > On 9/19/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
> > > On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <palomaverde@...> wrote:
> > > > Hi all, I'm Leigh.
> > >
> > > If I may ask - are you a female Leigh or a male Leigh? (and is it
> > > pronounced "Lee"?)
> >
> > Female, and yes, though I have some clever friends who like to
> > pronounce it like 'sleigh'. Why?
>
> Because it seemed to me like a name that could be used for either
> gender (like "Dana", for example) -- and I wanted to know the correct
> pronoun to use to refer to you in the future --, and because the
> pronunciation of English proper names is not always predictable.
Yes, I know how "Dana" gets mixed up.  CS Replicants like to write back
and address me as "Ms." all the time.  I usually throw it right back in
their face as a perfect example of why they shouldn't jump to
conclusions and stop following scripts.


> ....
> On 9/19/06, li_sasxsek@nutter.net <li_sasxsek@...> wrote:
> > From what little I've learned of Lojban so far, it appears
> it can be as
> > ambiguous or as precise as the speaker wants it to be.
> Maybe someone
> > who knows more than I do can clarify this better.
>
> I don't know that much more, either, but I'd say you're right.
>
> What Lojban aims for is complete _syntactic_ unambiguity; that is, a
> given sequence of words can be parsed in exactly one way. (No
> sentences like "Time flies like an arrow", where any of the first
> three words can be the verb.) It _doesn't_ necessarily give you
> _semantic_ unambiguity, and you're still free to be semantically vague
> or precise.
>
> (Though as someone noted, "the price of infinite precision is infinite
> verbosity".)
Yes, that's true.  I have to admit there are a lot of things I like
about Lojban, but there are also just as many things that I dislike
about it.