From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Nov 19 16:01:50 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EdceN-0004R7-2r for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:01:46 -0800 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EdceG-0004Qw-QC for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:01:38 -0800 Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:01:36 -0800 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Up-to-date definition of Lojban Message-ID: <20051120000136.GU23316@chain.digitalkingdom.org> References: <1003614874.20051119120342@mail.ru> <20051119060745.GK23316@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560511190633j100f3c6dhfa8f70c2a540924@mail.gmail.com> <20051119203205.GS23316@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560511191259k90d9ae1j873f05b2bb835284@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <925d17560511191259k90d9ae1j873f05b2bb835284@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 2621 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:59:03PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 11/19/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:33:02AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > I don't see why beginners should be treated as if they were > > > incapable of using their brains. > > > > It has nothing to do with using their brains or not. It has to > > do with not presenting *unfinished works* to people as though > > they were canon. They're not. Period. > > I haven't seen anyone do that. I certainly have not. > > > If I had thought people were going to go around trumpeting the > > BPFK stuff as gospel before we were done, I likely wouldn't have > > taken the jatna job. > > Nobody is trumpeting it as gospel. Then I've repeatedly misread you in some fashion. Every time *I've* seen you explain xorlo, to my recollection, you've done it without any comment whatsoever that it was tentative and could be over-ruled at any time. I've realized that I've been conflating two issues, so let me spread them out: 1. I think it is a pedagogical mistake to present newbies in any field of endeavour with more than the bare minimum they need to understand basic conceps. I think that giving *the CLL* to newbies is a mistake, but until recently we haven't had anything better. I think introducing them to the BPFK is a pedagogical error of the first degree, on the order of teaching someone English using http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/020530902X (The Elements Of Style). It is simply bad teaching to start beginners with abstruse discussions of core elements of a language; you teach them how to say hellow first. However, this is merely a difference of opinion, and ultimately unimportant. 2. I recall that you (xorxes) have, multiple times, explained xorlo to people without any warning. Without, in fact, even telling them that what you were explaining was a variant proposol or at odds with the CLL. I can dig up IRC examples of this, if you wish. I consider this not a difference of opinion, but rather deception. I myself have explained xorlo to newbies quite a few times on IRC, but I *always* preface by explaining that it is part of an unfinished effort and could be repealed at any time, what it conflicts with, and so on. Hell, I do that *for LFB*; the BPFK stuff is even *more* up in the air. Not doing so is something I see as actively harmful and deceptive, and I don't like it. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/