Received: from localhost ([::1]:59659 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YpwJS-0004P6-7x; Wed, 06 May 2015 03:12:22 -0700 Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:36495) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YpwJL-0004Ot-8v for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 03:12:19 -0700 Received: by wgiu9 with SMTP id u9so6004670wgi.3 for ; Wed, 06 May 2015 03:12:08 -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=qmicE2OlPB6iQM6tuAxwvBo3qDdhLmczBgzV7kWDCss=; b=FZzlWvwVMzTJ3De9+Qpvk9aZno1rcWqpXy1wlBLFoMkAAdzcslL5xJ4fN9t5SRffx9 kPIpzdb0EUKhOk2QQTQBnzpFUK7OezWZbRTik9WaC8LL1Svq2cfRZk15gyVuNb9J5Jmw zTOFtWFiTcyMNE6eARZrW3yf9L1RU4qdFIJRDSmsceFxfz44aoljRNIoSS/ntsA/KUTN Z62d5AJZOEzSNoOpO19VMxuhcdgLuwQNchtiuFf/agZl60fAdam1aVbRfb8PEtA1xo6d ogkzkX8r0XD+wYTO5qc+YbTwrglAHx+AFH/6B1g+nvro55J1qumIS/9hgXHRbiqlvSPn DZFQ== X-Received: by 10.194.172.130 with SMTP id bc2mr61458575wjc.85.1430907128129; Wed, 06 May 2015 03:12:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.221.167 with HTTP; Wed, 6 May 2015 03:11:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554513DC.1040404@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 13:11:47 +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="===============5640597320562387121==" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org --===============5640597320562387121== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6342142f310515670753 --089e013c6342142f310515670753 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-05-05 17:37 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > On 5 May 2015 11:49, "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. > > > > > > Why do you think that's untrue? > > My impression is that CLL is generally regarded as an accessible and clear > exposition of the subject matter. I don't know if it's possible to > generalize over linguists who have read CLL: the only ones I can think of > who I know have are me and Geoffrey Sampson. > Great for him but not for you and not for me due to survivorship bias. But among conlangers who have read CLL there is conspicuously no tendency > for them not to understand most of what it says. > I base my suggestion on public opinions of other people. It's irrelevant what we think of CLL. However, although CLL is an accessible and clear exposition, the language > itself was and is underdefined (relative to the majoritarian view of what > counts as Lojban completion). So the language needs to be completed, and > then CLL needs to be revised, and then teaching materials would need to be > developed. > > And > > _______________________________________________ > llg-board mailing list > llg-board@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board > > --089e013c6342142f310515670753 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-05-05 17:37 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:


On 5 May 2015 11:49, "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.co= m> wrote:
>>
>> > Let's face it: even linguists and known conlangers who ow= n paper copies of CLL don't understand most of what is said in this boo= k.
>>
>> I think that's untrue.
>
>
> Why do you think that's untrue?

My impression is that CLL is generally regarded as an= accessible and clear exposition of the subject matter. I don't know if= it's possible to generalize over linguists who have read CLL: the only= ones I can think of who I know have are me and Geoffrey Sampson.


Great for him but not for you and not for me due= to survivorship bias.

But among conlangers who have read CLL there is conspicuously no tende= ncy for them not to understand most of what it says.

I= base my suggestion on public opinions of other people. It's irrelevant= what we think of CLL.

However, although CLL is an accessible and clear exposition,= the language itself was and is underdefined (relative to the majoritarian = view of what counts as Lojban completion). So the language needs to be comp= leted, and then CLL needs to be revised, and then teaching materials would = need to be developed.

And


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


--089e013c6342142f310515670753-- --===============5640597320562387121== 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 --===============5640597320562387121==--