Received: from localhost ([::1]:53198 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YpLR7-0003kj-Gt; Mon, 04 May 2015 11:49:49 -0700 Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:35327) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YpLQw-0003kZ-OY for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 11:49:47 -0700 Received: by wgyo15 with SMTP id o15so159644536wgy.2 for ; Mon, 04 May 2015 11:49:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=jIL6zmXdvMU0pdATp/vsysgKzym7Dhb4Z2PmSVsmV3Q=; b=u1E6WXIXVdEypnfElQMpTIBcu2InRblPVJrI9cat4g7kNkrYe4xPP2xmk8ka0DpySo kwW5m3eIpjg8XjrOuBSk+9pTMAGeis9KZ2ezBbpwWJAqqmr/BC3a2kfiaVoytyp4rBGM r+tB9+4gTQHmvx3qJT9FkBB9+q2TaVQDPKpxgYkS3H/rA5u+6fnKv5gG+x8Atiuw9X0J ljaWzSHPX5lF4CiIVIf4oJuRnvt0s/h3QmPzIqMql4a01uMqz2gP05ZcHy0uaXH1E0a2 t81Gp9fUZf11igLLsEr3wIVnTvVUq3O/5SI83z7WxGX082rLqEpq+1LSeQalhwCZrerH HN9Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.82.38 with SMTP id f6mr42483320wjy.16.1430765372196; Mon, 04 May 2015 11:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.170.193 with HTTP; Mon, 4 May 2015 11:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.170.193 with HTTP; Mon, 4 May 2015 11:49:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554513DC.1040404@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 19:49:32 +0100 Message-ID: From: And Rosta To: llg-board@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [llg-board] Call to Order, statement of Presence X-BeenThere: llg-board@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-board@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2385990729423158205==" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org --===============2385990729423158205== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0bfc2c4592f051546051b --047d7bf0bfc2c4592f051546051b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 4 May 2015 15:13, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > 2015-05-04 16:00 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> On 4 May 2015 12:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > 2015-05-04 11:16 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2015 21:12, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: >> >> >> >> > Let's face it: even linguists and known conlangers who own paper copies of CLL don't understand most of what is said in this book. >> >> >> >> I think that's untrue. >> > >> > >> > Have you listened to Conlangery podcast, Lojban episode? >> >> No. >> >> > I don't know who else can be considered a more well-known conlanger and I don't know for sure why they were puzzled so much by CLL but the most evident explanation is that CLL didn't care of being immediately digestible. >> >> The natural interpretation of your "linguists and known conlangers" in its rhetorical context was "most linguists and known conlangers" rather than "more than zero linguists and conlangers". > > > You have statistics? Most are those who have it on their bookshelves. So how may of them are now able to speak CLL Lojban? How is that relevant? You attribute most failures of CLL-owners to speak Lojban to the supposed difficulty of CLL? >> I can't really be arsed to seek out and listen to that podcast, but in the couple I've heard, the presenters casually examine a conlang and review it briefly. Do the reviewers allege that CLL itself is needlessly difficult? > > Yes. One needs to delve into CLL, not just browse it to get the gist because it lacks normal linguistic terms and when it doesn't it can use them in a different way (take "modals" and "perfective"). Are these the respects in which they allege it is needlessly difficult? The abuse of standard terms is surely a minor annoyance rather than a serious impediment to learning, tho I would agree that they ought to be replaced. As for the lack of normal linguistic terms, it's not clear what normal linguistic terms would be appropriate: I don't remember any discussion of the matter; I'm not aware of any consensus on it; I think the Lojban terms are generally preferable. --And. --047d7bf0bfc2c4592f051546051b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 4 May 2015 15:13, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-05-04 16:00 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 4 May 2015 12:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: >> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2015-05-04 11:16 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2 May 2015 21:12, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>= wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Let's face it: even linguists and known conlange= rs who own paper copies of CLL don't understand most of what is said in= this book.
>> >>
>> >> I think that's untrue.
>> >
>> >
>> > Have you listened to Conlangery podcast, Lojban episode?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > I don't know who else can be considered a more well-known= conlanger and I don't know for sure why they were puzzled so much by C= LL but the most evident explanation is that CLL didn't care of being im= mediately digestible.
>>
>> The natural interpretation of your "linguists and known conla= ngers" in its rhetorical context was "most linguists and known co= nlangers" rather than "more than zero linguists and conlangers&qu= ot;.
>
>
> You have statistics? Most are those who have it on their bookshelves. = So how may of them are now able to speak CLL Lojban?

How is that relevant? You attribute most failures of CLL-own= ers to speak Lojban to the supposed difficulty of CLL?

>> I can't really be arsed to seek out and listen = to that podcast, but in the couple I've heard, the presenters casually = examine a conlang and review it briefly.=C2=A0 Do the reviewers allege that= CLL itself is needlessly difficult?
>
> Yes. One needs to delve into CLL, not just browse it to get the gist b= ecause it lacks normal linguistic terms and when it doesn't it can use = them in a different way (take "modals" and "perfective"= ).

Are these the respects in which they allege it is needlessly= difficult? The abuse of standard terms is surely a minor annoyance rather = than a serious impediment to learning, tho I would agree that they ought to= be replaced. As for the lack of normal linguistic terms, it's not clea= r what normal linguistic terms would be appropriate: I don't remember a= ny discussion of the matter; I'm not aware of any consensus on it; I th= ink the Lojban terms are generally preferable.

--And.

--047d7bf0bfc2c4592f051546051b-- --===============2385990729423158205== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ llg-board mailing list llg-board@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board --===============2385990729423158205==--