From mattarn@123.net Thu Feb 10 13:27:59 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:31:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from new.e-mol.com ([65.169.135.18] helo=mole.e-mol.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1CzLqx-00073n-O8 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:27:59 -0800 Received: from mail.123.net (new.e-mol.com [65.163.85.18]) by mole.e-mol.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with SMTP id j1ALRSTd024613 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:27:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:27:28 -0500 Message-Id: <200502102127.j1ALRSTd024613@mole.e-mol.com> To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org From: Matt Arnold Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: "I understand Lojban" In-Reply-To: <420B2496.7090408@bilkent.edu.tr> References: <420B2496.7090408@bilkent.edu.tr> X-Priority: 3 X-From: mattarn@mail.123.net X-Originating-IP: [209.220.229.254] Content-Type: text/plain X-archive-position: 1134 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: mattarn@123.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners After thinking about this whole discussion, I almost want to say just use {fanva}, translate. Although, if we're doing the same thing to our native language, what are we translating it into? -la epcat lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org wrote: >Robert Griffin wrote: > >> Approaching this from an English-speaker's viewpoint, when I say that >> I understand English, I don't mean to say that I understand ANYTHING >> which is discussed in English. Thus, most English speakers don't >> understand discussions of quantum mechanics. >> Many people who are fluent in a language have little technical >> knowledge of the grammatical principles. On the other hand, they >> understand varying amounts of what is said or written. >> Let's take 'Jabberwocky' as an example of where understanding a >> language is clearly differentiated from lack of understanding. >> "`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves >> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: >> All mimsy were the borogoves, >> And the mome raths outgrabe." >> English speakers understand that the action takes place in the past, >> and that some things referred to as slithy toves gyred and gimbled in >> some place/time/manner/fashion. >> We recognize nonsense verbs, nouns, and adjectives. >> There have been attempts to 'translate' Jabberwocky into other >> languages. Someone unfamiliar with the target language would be unable >> to 'understand' any of the poem, nor recognize which words are >> nonsense and which are actual parts of the language. >> >> We can understand a language when we read it, but not when we hear it, >> or vice versa. >> We can understand a language without being able to speak it. >> >> When my math teacher in secondary school required us to use Spanish to >> express our need to sharpen our pencils, I understood that 'Puedo >> sacarle punto al lapis' meant 'May I sharpen my pencil', but I >> understood little beyond that, not even being taught that 'Puedo' >> meant 'I can' (or 'Can I'). >> >> As far as I can tell, there is a certain type of neurological activity >> when a person understands what is being read or heard, but does not >> occur otherwise. This understanding is at two levels. The first >> level is a general comprehension of the overall language/symbol system >> being used. The second level is a more specific understanding of the >> topic of the communication. The second level is what is apparently >> addressed by Lojban. The first level is apparently unaddressed. >> >> When I watched 'The Passion' I understood about a quarter of the >> Aramaic, as I can read Syriac Aramaic with a little fluency, and have >> a little familiarity with Biblical and Rabbinic Aramaic. As the topics >> were simple, I easily understood them, in a way that I wouldn't had >> the actors been discussing obscure technical points of Rabbinic law >> ('prosbul' for instance). >> >> In the 1980s I listened to a talk by Mar Babai Soro in Assyrian >> Aramaic, of which I understood perhaps 1 word in ten, if that. >> However, I was able to follow well enough to understand (2nd sense) >> something of what he was talking about. On the other hand, a >> discussion with a friend about string theory was barely comprehensible >> in the 2nd sense while fully comprehensible in the 1st sense (all the >> terms were common English). >> >> It appears we need a term to handle the first sense of >> understanding--do I understand the words. The same term would be used >> for understanding someone's handwriting, or someone's accent. >> >> >"I understand Lojban words" - mi jimpe fi lo jbovla >(Quantifiers can be added here to indicate how many words you understand >- the previous sentence would be true if you knew only one word of Lojban.) > >If you want to refer to understanding the sense of something that is >expressed in Lojban, you probably need to use "la'e". > >robin.tr > >-- >"I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another where the best fruit is." -- Terry Pratchett > > >Robin Turner >IDMYO >Bilkent Universitesi >Ankara 06533 >Turkey > >www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin _______________________________________________________ Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com