From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 28 15:33:15 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hsnm6-0008JS-Lo for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:15 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.235]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hsnm3-0008JK-Lr for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:14 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t11so1212894wxc for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=TKPMDzD4n3uSBGBmHxIWbDy0HrWoWact/2kV4GHMh08TFA79r6XVyszfmYuuV67QKWfSfDj+2YMI7GklX43P1QurBf/xVWxNbaKlWpTlKi0F1bAtqvWndmf+yJ4CIHiGXjENYRhJFNQVEulonsp4H726vpwIXRlMzXVYPCoReGI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=g3GQ+xHkyE7c0YE8sUlqolgN+rnyJg0Qysc3ptyYY0LelIrN+l4J7t5SCuNqcDLAaJ+0Hkw9A303II+rMEsBt9yH1PH7vBypw1B1oNTKorNa5M3jf9N2KBA8NMSXuAHvTbSWLrPVAZFmv0o+i3QoQGEquWA8Og8BcxEZPh4yS9s= Received: by 10.70.39.2 with SMTP id m2mr9196668wxm.1180391590001; Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.19 with HTTP; Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0705281533h51eddf87r2923c354eb109f51@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:33:09 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: dicussions about basic vocabulary In-Reply-To: <1180372489.465b0e096a5aa@ssl0.ovh.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_110940_2173510.1180391589910" References: <1180372489.465b0e096a5aa@ssl0.ovh.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4762 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: picos.picos@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_110940_2173510.1180391589910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 5/28/07, m.kornig@sondal.net wrote: > > I think a beginner does not have to know the "whole story" > right from the beginning. He does not have to know the entire place > structure, for instance. One place (or the first two places maybe) should > sufficient. Later he will discover more places and might start to > appreciate the richness of Lojban. From my own experience these are > actually the highlights of learning (a language): when you suddenly > realize a generalisation or a surprising use of a concept in a totally > different field... You're right. A beginner may not have to know the 4th place of e.g. { mluni }. But by { pendo = Freund(in) } people may not notice even the fact that such thing as "a place structure" exists in Lojban, first of all. It's blotting out the vital principle of Lojban. I, too, had been naively thinking it should be ok if I treat gismu as "noun" or "verb" or "adjective" in accordance with their English translations; but I regret, because that didn't realy help improve my understanding of Lojban. It might also become a stumbling block to one's future progress if he falsely gets used to that idea at an early stage of learning. My suggestion is that every Lojban learner must be aware, from the beginning, of the fact that gismu is not "noun" nor "verb" nor "adjective"; it's "gismu". ... or more confusing. I'd say it's a clarification. Well I don't know much about Lojban yet. But... from what I have learnt > so far it's not SO much different from other languages I know. Sure > the names like "gismu" are unique. But in other languages you have the > verb > as the central element. And verbs, for instance in German, can have > none or one or two objects. There are similarities... Also you have > the concept of "root words" in other languages. Or the same word which > can be a noun in one sentence and a verb or an adjective in another. I'll come back to that. > > So at least we might want to give them a mental note like > "Lojban root words represent a state of relation between things, not > things themselves". > > I'm not so sure that many people will actually be able to understand > and appreciate this statement... Beginners do not have to comprehend that statement instantly. But therefore they may at least be aware of the fact that there's something unique about gismu, being more careful about the naive equation of gismu with e.g. verb. You said Lojban shouldn't be so much different from other (natural) languages and the grammatical functions of words like gismu are analogous to that of e.g. German. I'm not sure whether that is entirely correct. I wouldn't say gismu isn't unique because words (predicates) which are specifically defined of its arguments as a formula (x1 x2 x3 x4 x5) is so rare in the realm of human-usable languages. Lojban is based on a predicate logic, not on a propositional logic, after all. It differs from natural languages at its fundamental level. Okay, Lojban looks similar to natlangs, because they share certain characteristics of human language (e.g. they must have what you call a "central element" to invoke a human-perceptible meaning). But that doesn't mean the place structure in Lojban and the word order in German are of the same principle. > People would be more tempted to learn a thing if they're shown how it is > unique & worthwhile > than how it is commonplace & uncreative. > People would be intrigued if they're presented with some Lojban-specific > sentence > > which is grammatically untranslatable into their own natlangs. > > I speak three languages (to a reasonably good level). And I know > lots of examples where you can express something quite easily > in one language and have considerable difficulties in translating it > into the other. This does not intrigue or impress me too much. I'll give you an example: { mi dunda le cifnu ko } This literally means "I give the-baby you(imperative)". We can't seem to properly translate it into English because of the {ko}. Robin Turner and Nick Nicholas have said it to be something like "Act so that I give you the baby". But obviously that's a mere makeshift (words for "act" and "so that" are non-existent in the original). When I first saw this sentence, I was somewhat intrigued and impressed. According to your view, you might say that this expression is a bad thing for Lojban to have because it cannot easily be translated into natlangs; I would say it's a capacity. Such is what enables Lojbanisits to conceive/express something which is difficult to realize in natlangs. It's like a pair of wings given to Lojbanists to fly, traverse the boundary (limitation) of natlangs, and visit some uncharted islands afar. Your remark amounts to say that a trip to these unexplored islands is uninteresting because they aren't nearby. I see the limitation of natural languages as a motivation to bring Lojban into play. Lojban has its own exclusive purposes (as well as more general purposes). And that we should introduce to people. (BTW you pointed out the disproportion in different languages' ease of expressing different things. They are disproportionate because some language is more advantageous in certain form of expression while some isn't. I don't understand why such an advantageous linguistic behaviour of a language does not impress you. Yes, those may be difficult to translate into some language; but we can't blame them for having their own good points.) Vid ------=_Part_110940_2173510.1180391589910 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 5/28/07, m.kornig@sondal.net <m.kornig@sondal.net> wrote:
I think a beginner does not have to know the "whole story"
right from the beginning. He does not have to know the entire place
structure, for instance. One place (or the first two places maybe) should
sufficient. Later he will discover more places and might start to
appreciate the richness of Lojban. From my own experience these are
actually the highlights of learning (a language): when you suddenly
realize a generalisation or a surprising use of a concept in a totally
different field...

You're right. A beginner may not have to know the 4th place of e.g. { mluni }.
But by { pendo = Freund(in) } people may not notice even the fact that such thing as "a place structure" exists in Lojban, first of all. It's blotting out the vital principle of Lojban.

I, too, had been naively thinking it should be ok if I treat gismu as "noun" or "verb" or "adjective" in accordance with their English translations; but I regret, because that didn't realy help improve my understanding of Lojban. It might also become a stumbling block to one's future progress if he falsely gets used to that idea at an early stage of learning. My suggestion is that every Lojban learner must be aware, from the beginning, of the fact that gismu is not "noun" nor "verb" nor "adjective"; it's "gismu".

... or more confusing.

I'd say it's a clarification.

Well I don't know much about Lojban yet. But... from what I have learnt
so far it's not SO much different from other languages I know. Sure
the names like "gismu" are unique. But in other languages you have the verb
as the central element. And verbs, for instance in German, can have
none or one or two objects. There are similarities... Also you have
the concept of "root words" in other languages. Or the same word which
can be a noun in one sentence and a verb or an adjective in another.

I'll come back to that.
 
> So at least we might want to give them a mental note like
> "Lojban root words represent a state of relation between things, not things themselves".

I'm not so sure that many people will actually be able to understand
and appreciate this statement...

Beginners do not have to comprehend that statement instantly. But therefore they may at least be aware of the fact that there's something unique about gismu, being more careful about the naive equation of gismu with e.g. verb. You said Lojban shouldn't be so much different from other (natural) languages and the grammatical functions of words like gismu are analogous to that of e.g. German. I'm not sure whether that is entirely correct. I wouldn't say gismu isn't unique because words (predicates) which are specifically defined of its arguments as a formula (x1 x2 x3 x4 x5) is so rare in the realm of human-usable languages. Lojban is based on a predicate logic, not on a propositional logic, after all. It differs from natural languages at its fundamental level. Okay, Lojban looks similar to natlangs, because they share certain characteristics of human language (e.g. they must have what you call a "central element" to invoke a human-perceptible meaning). But that doesn't mean the place structure in Lojban and the word order in German are of the same principle.

> People would be more tempted to learn a thing if they're shown how it is unique & worthwhile
> than how it is commonplace & uncreative.
> People would be intrigued if they're presented with some Lojban-specific sentence
> which is grammatically untranslatable into their own natlangs.

I speak three languages (to a reasonably good level). And I know
lots of examples where you can express something quite easily
in one language and have considerable difficulties in translating it
into the other. This does not intrigue or impress me too much.

I'll give you an example:

{ mi dunda le cifnu ko }

This literally means "I give the-baby you(imperative)". We can't seem to properly translate it into English because of the {ko}. Robin Turner and Nick Nicholas have said it to be something like "Act so that I give you the baby". But obviously that's a mere makeshift (words for "act" and "so that" are non-existent in the original).

When I first saw this sentence, I was somewhat intrigued and impressed. According to your view, you might say that this expression is a bad thing for Lojban to have because it cannot easily be translated into natlangs; I would say it's a capacity. Such is what enables Lojbanisits to conceive/express something which is difficult to realize in natlangs. It's like a pair of wings given to Lojbanists to fly, traverse the boundary (limitation) of natlangs, and visit some uncharted islands afar. Your remark amounts to say that a trip to these unexplored islands is uninteresting because they aren't nearby.

I see the limitation of natural languages as a motivation to bring Lojban into play. Lojban has its own exclusive purposes (as well as more general purposes). And that we should introduce to people.
 
(BTW you pointed out the disproportion in different languages' ease of expressing different things. They are disproportionate because some language is more advantageous in certain form of expression while some isn't. I don't understand why such an advantageous linguistic behaviour of a language does not impress you. Yes, those may be difficult to translate into some language; but we can't blame them for having their own good points.)


Vid
------=_Part_110940_2173510.1180391589910--