Well, you describe language somewhat as if it were designed for communication. If, as Chomsky et al. argue, it was not, if it is a thought machine with communication hastily and inconveniently added later, then:
1)it is a bad—no, really bad—idea to try and teach computers speak language the way humans do—they should do better and probably start with a different (functional) architecture;
2)sound 2b and sound 2c may have a different underlying structure which is simply compressed by the hasty externalization (aka communication) module.
Well, you describe language somewhat as if it were designed for communication. If, as Chomsky et al. argue, it was not, if it is a thought machine with communication hastily and inconveniently added later, then:
1)it is a bad—no, really bad—idea to try and teach computers speak language the way humans do—they should do better and probably start with a different (functional) architecture;
2)sound 2b and sound 2c may have a different underlying structure which is simply compressed by the hasty externalization (aka communication) module.