Received: from localhost ([::1]:55233 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZYX-0001jA-HP; Tue, 05 May 2015 02:54:25 -0700 Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:35367) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZYR-0001j1-4F for llg-board@lojban.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 02:54:24 -0700 Received: by wgyo15 with SMTP id o15so176684624wgy.2 for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 02:54:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=UxTyUhmDUZHp+0Zbx6LrXzidDLzMKDRqRjS1OmQ3u8E=; b=l5a1sfuxbX142XBWrTRaRllOxky1GsSp5L3KkDfYPQGATOXTtRDjYMcKF/iBl0ny5X gp7ErATuRRDQrofQzKpzuP6wb/4tAi9DNR2kn7EmG/3lk++YkQmsBz1jU0LxpoUfGx6o wuH9V6z26XBF2kQG13fu2+Uz89/PBSvyC9GPGtShJgSd4P26nq0sCw3XTIlW3/bGwCK4 1QnVRkFDePQqlNoHnNGgVh49jMQd9+r4+w/sdRk8QglbEQy6Whea48Z8N7p1ESNWEvWj lmUYyUTNum4R3Z8++c8QaZQyMzY9lQnWPaD8tYgZBBs9luMuRJtfX/QMAXWwknHGNrnz 4aNg== X-Received: by 10.180.84.201 with SMTP id b9mr2351565wiz.49.1430819652206; Tue, 05 May 2015 02:54:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.221.167 with HTTP; Tue, 5 May 2015 02:53:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554513DC.1040404@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 12:53:51 +0300 Message-ID: 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="===============7744980108815762268==" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org --===============7744980108815762268== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044287501b86d5051552a970 --f46d044287501b86d5051552a970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-05-04 21:49 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > 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? > No, I attribute their explicit statements of the difficulty of CLL to their subsequent inability to understand the language. >> 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? > This probably doesn't matter. Either normal linguistic or purely Lojbanic terminology is to be used. E.g. using "perfective" instead of "restrospective" or instead of using real life examples of what it means or instead of just showing charts or how aspects are constructed are much better than just using arbitrary term "perfective" that means absolutely different thing in linguistics. So unless these are fixed I have no idea how continuing to publish the current state of CLL can help Lojban development except that people would boast by saying "I have a mysterious book on my bookshelf, no one has ever managed to decipher it". 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. > As for textbooks Waves use Lojbanic terms, I'm working on a "native terms" approach. CLL is somewhere in between. > --And. > > _______________________________________________ > llg-board mailing list > llg-board@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board > > --f46d044287501b86d5051552a970 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-05-04 21:49 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

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.co= m> 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-owners to speak Lojban to the supposed difficulty of CLL?

No, I attribute their explicit statements of the difficulty of = CLL to their subsequent inability to understand the language.

>> 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 nee= dlessly difficult?


This probably doesn&= #39;t matter. Either normal linguistic or purely Lojbanic terminology is to= be used. E.g. using "perfective" instead of "restrospective= " or instead of using real life examples of what it means or instead o= f just showing charts or how aspects are constructed are much better than j= ust using arbitrary term "perfective" that means absolutely diffe= rent thing in linguistics.

So unless these are fix= ed I have no idea how continuing to publish the current state of CLL can he= lp Lojban development except that people would boast by saying "I have= a mysterious book on my bookshelf, no one has ever managed to decipher it&= quot;.

T= he abuse of standard terms is surely a minor annoyance rather than a seriou= s 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 Lojba= n terms are generally preferable.

As for textbooks Wav= es use Lojbanic terms, I'm working on a "native terms" approa= ch.
CLL is somewhere in between.
=C2=A0

--And.


_______________________________________________
llg-board mailing list
llg-board@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board


--f46d044287501b86d5051552a970-- --===============7744980108815762268== 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 --===============7744980108815762268==--