From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 28 18:48:49 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 28 May 2007 18:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HsqpM-00038C-2c for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 18:48:49 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.237]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HsqpF-000384-Ti for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 18:48:44 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t11so1243752wxc for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 18:48:34 -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=AbCzpXe+m9E2ipuMrEr4Ua19iDdeO3r/OyrfIGdqtaEDbr8UEOo6sDgjMjtNnr1l6zWZLtD7uYQDz9lf6/0rJOMX1ObezcQv5L3Yh6AQMfyrbsGHoEEhmGizuIkdJ+QG85wEvKUIHahE598eoorepsPOHU5CInH38CH2Hdzyxbc= 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=KEK4K3HmLts9AdgSpdxJfIA+aAa0RnsSP8d3pUputFOG4exZWqBuUuPNLw+NDW2oV0UvE5nSO4h3eICmK0eztdE7UYNDGwaBKP/6aGsue0eP6C6XW8Z3YAbME/XIMPbAb8zLSONY1BDI1+VZrMSibnFMsexv3+sq3uMi9PL35Yg= Received: by 10.70.39.11 with SMTP id m11mr9392242wxm.1180403314592; Mon, 28 May 2007 18:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.19 with HTTP; Mon, 28 May 2007 18:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0705281848n491bc366u6d2423c7de6fc41@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 02:48:34 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: My First Lojban Words 1.4 In-Reply-To: <1180380955.465b2f1b54bc7@ssl0.ovh.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_111788_11439113.1180403314536" References: <1180380955.465b2f1b54bc7@ssl0.ovh.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4763 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_111788_11439113.1180403314536 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: > > You can look up all common words up in dictionaries, > I suppose. So why don't people just learn *all* vocab by > themselves from dictionaries? > > My answer to this question would be: Because it's not very > effective. Yes, I believe learning words from dictionaries is not > very effective. I think: People don't learn all vocabs because there are words which they don't need. It's not necessarily because the practice of looking up words in dictionaries are ineffective. Learning words from dictionaries should actually be effective because that is what gives you mostly reliable definitions and exemplary usages. But it might not be efficient for memorising useful words. I said the word for "train" would be practical more for Spanish learners than Lojban learners because it is likely that the occasion to read/hear/say this term is more frequent in the Spanish language communty than in the Lojban community (there are more railroads in Mexico than in Lojbanistan). Yet of course we can leave { trene } on the list if we don't bother saving the number of items there. > I'd distinguish between "general usefulness" and "personal usefulness". > > Of course. That's why I call it "MY first Lojban words". I'm confused, Martin. Are you saying that "My" in "My First Lojban Words" means "personal"? If the list is to be given to people as a general guide/course, shouldn't the selection of vocabularies come up to "general" usefulness? "animal" is too general, I'd say. I reckon "dog", "cat" and "mouse" are > more frequently used in everyday language than "animal". I'd list "bird" rather than "mouse". Today I think I've seen more than 20 birds and 0 mouse except the one under my right hand. Also, > it's easier to explain what a "dog" is, i.e. by showing a picture > of a dog (and everybody will understand immediately), than what "animals" > are. Remember I don't want learners to rely essentially on translations > to grasp the meaning of a word. I'm convinced that learning a language from pictures is far more > efficient than learning from translations. Not necessarily. As you said, it's difficult to depict without partiality a concept like "animal" in a picture. It's important to remember that a pictorial representation can be far more definitional/limitational than a literal representation. That's because there tends to exist more semiological elements in a picture than in a word. And there won't be a canvas on which we could depict the word { munje }, for example. Also, we can't really learn & appreciate the language of Shakespeare by means of pictorial representation. The same might go for Lojban. We may not be able to elaborate every essential aspect of Lojban in pictures. My worry is that learning a combination of words like "cmalu nanmu" > is not very effective since most people say "nanla". Sure you can make > yourself understood, but you won't be able to understand others. It's just about saving the number of items. It's up to you. If we think carefully, { bersa } (son) might be more useful than { nanla }. There might be more occasions in which somebody's son is mentioned/discussed than a boy is. Vid ------=_Part_111788_11439113.1180403314536 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:
You can look up all common words up in dictionaries,
I suppose. So why don't people just learn *all* vocab by
themselves from dictionaries?

My answer to this question would be: Because it's not very
effective. Yes, I believe learning words from dictionaries is not
very effective.

I think: People don't learn all vocabs because there are words which they don't need. It's not necessarily because the practice of looking up words in dictionaries are ineffective.

Learning words from dictionaries should actually be effective because that is what gives you mostly reliable definitions and exemplary usages. But it might not be efficient for memorising useful words.

I said the word for "train" would be practical more for Spanish learners than Lojban learners because it is likely that the occasion to read/hear/say this term is more frequent in the Spanish language communty than in the Lojban community (there are more railroads in Mexico than in Lojbanistan). Yet of course we can leave { trene } on the list if we don't bother saving the number of items there.

> I'd distinguish between "general usefulness" and "personal usefulness".

Of course. That's why I call it "MY first Lojban words".

I'm confused, Martin. Are you saying that "My" in "My First Lojban Words" means "personal"? If the list is to be given to people as a general guide/course, shouldn't the selection of vocabularies come up to "general" usefulness?

"animal" is too general, I'd say. I reckon "dog", "cat" and "mouse" are
more frequently used in everyday language than "animal".

I'd list "bird" rather than "mouse". Today I think I've seen more than 20 birds and 0 mouse except the one under my right hand.

Also,
it's easier to explain what a "dog" is, i.e. by showing a picture
of a dog (and everybody will understand immediately), than what "animals"
are. Remember I don't want learners to rely essentially on translations
to grasp the meaning of a word.
I'm convinced that learning a language from pictures is far more
efficient than learning from translations.

Not necessarily. As you said, it's difficult to depict without partiality a concept like "animal" in a picture. It's important to remember that a pictorial representation can be far more definitional/limitational than a literal representation. That's because there tends to exist more semiological elements in a picture than in a word. And there won't be a canvas on which we could depict the word { munje }, for example. Also, we can't really learn & appreciate the language of Shakespeare by means of pictorial representation. The same might go for Lojban. We may not be able to elaborate every essential aspect of Lojban in pictures.

My worry is that learning a combination of words like "cmalu nanmu"
is not very effective since most people say "nanla". Sure you can make
yourself understood, but you won't be able to understand others.

It's just about saving the number of items. It's up to you.

If we think carefully, { bersa } (son) might be more useful than { nanla }. There might be more occasions in which somebody's son is mentioned/discussed than a boy is.


Vid
------=_Part_111788_11439113.1180403314536--