Received: from localhost ([::1]:55263 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZq6-0001sA-Lq; Tue, 05 May 2015 03:12:36 -0700 Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:37482) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZpz-0001s0-00 for llg-board@lojban.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 03:12:33 -0700 Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so139891491wid.0 for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 03:12:20 -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=zWtaIiqkgHETTO9Rip+7kpLRZGEghMHoWnuolNnczHs=; b=P/dtgvcS1FDy/ZB3fupPCgOE/7vTrT0187n69tDWrzkPABYdkB2DpNgQcrBbgIiUrV HiZ6Zja452NW7Y0nn9xA7C6URzvZTHtnRl6h8MptikAvC2GNanS1ZtIwadWKX2uhngwZ 7W0p3f+kHYFfbOSWC3uOOWRTWTkxA+zkZJ2pz+YTTeXo7kuqj2EwQ8hNIcXlXKWL9Lkr aZP1I1km++pyu0959CvEINeoXXsUrOdYSchrkS2TGmgF9HiwiC8J4MyP/0vzMIPeLeRJ A+S6qFw/0RysRd+PaonVXsyCmE2O9Ux6Pj062Bc11XF3whtVtll994wyI9y75btzJHPv o0EA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.105.233 with SMTP id gp9mr2578944wib.83.1430820740142; Tue, 05 May 2015 03:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.170.193 with HTTP; Tue, 5 May 2015 03:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.170.193 with HTTP; Tue, 5 May 2015 03:12:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554513DC.1040404@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 11:12:20 +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="===============8497156942139630747==" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org --===============8497156942139630747== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442883ef41bbf051552e9d8 --f46d0442883ef41bbf051552e9d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 5 May 2015 10:54, "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. That's much more plausible than your original claim. >> >> 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". If you really have no idea then you're living in such a different mental universe from everyone else that I'm not sure it's worth discussing further. So far the evidence of the book's difficulty (where I understand 'difficulty' to be 'difficulty in excess of the amount of difficulty that is inevitable in a reference grammar of Lojban') is: 1. Alleged misuse of term 'perfective', & indubitable misuse of 'modal' 2. Remarks from one podcast, where the reviewers attributed difficulty to it because they were unable to learn to speak Lojban from it. (2) seems frivolous. (1) seems worth changing in some future edition. And --f46d0442883ef41bbf051552e9d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 5 May 2015 10:54, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > Let's face it: even linguists and known= conlangers who own paper copies of CLL don't understand most of what i= s said in this book.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think that's untrue.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you listened to Conlangery podcast, Lojban epis= ode?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> > I don't know who else can be considered a more w= ell-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 kn= own conlangers" in its rhetorical context was "most linguists and= known conlangers" rather than "more than zero linguists and conl= angers".
>> >
>> >
>> > You have statistics? Most are those who have it on their book= shelves. 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.

That's much more plausible than your original claim.

>> >> I can't really be arsed to seek out an= d 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 al= lege that CLL itself is needlessly difficult?
>> >
>> > Yes. One needs to delve into CLL, not just browse it to get t= he gist because it lacks normal linguistic terms and when it doesn't it= can use them in a different way (take "modals" and "perfect= ive").
>>
>> Are these the respects in which they allege it is needlessly diffi= cult?
>
>
> This probably doesn't matter. Either normal linguistic or purely L= ojbanic terminology is to be used. E.g. using "perfective" instea= d of "restrospective" or instead of using real life examples of w= hat it means or instead of just showing charts or how aspects are construct= ed are much better than just using arbitrary term "perfective" th= at 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".

If you really have no idea then you're living in such a = different mental universe from everyone else that I'm not sure it's= worth discussing further.

So far the evidence of the book's difficulty (where I un= derstand 'difficulty' to be 'difficulty in excess of the amount= of difficulty that is inevitable in a reference grammar of Lojban') is= :

1. Alleged misuse of term 'perfective', & indubi= table misuse of 'modal'

2. Remarks from one podcast, where the reviewers attributed = difficulty to it because they were unable to learn to speak Lojban from it.=

(2) seems frivolous. (1) seems worth changing in some future= edition.

And

--f46d0442883ef41bbf051552e9d8-- --===============8497156942139630747== 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 --===============8497156942139630747==--