From lojban-beginners+bncCOjSjrXVGBD618_hBBoE7T_b9Q@googlegroups.com Tue Jul 06 19:52:58 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OWKkm-0002TX-DP; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:58 -0700 Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30sf6068253qyk.16 for ; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=WILaF8O4fBc3GQOO3y/ahIVueK2XCCavWermkuVR/f4=; b=2YJRJAscKh9NDZMJk+dfmLBBx8688o2hBH1hOecjDSkU/5b635bNxxaHau2MQHGdvv pthu/yPryvPUlW6gTpx0r6y7MvAWOQCLxFh4cut+yj+vMUn+ZoQ0NKPmrfqmIuXrSPsQ yZrEiK0vzFkym1oUEygg6zfXZXEpxH3zZdssQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=lot0DemyT02mnfrEZwMcTvllM5G1VEZ8TPih5ztm8rue+crhFxB+vHgKT6lV9N4TeY NgOJv7s/qS9m+LZbTEl21SBICLxovEP79k54901BtbL+YWAEIOMlHu5nuLhH2YSxCW2g 9cg+e2ofnwddShr049F75kWctgL0au1xQwPw8= Received: by 10.229.117.197 with SMTP id s5mr720816qcq.14.1278471162558; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.179.165 with SMTP id bq37ls3954426qcb.3.p; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.226.21 with SMTP id iu21mr125081qcb.19.1278471161670; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.226.21 with SMTP id iu21mr125080qcb.19.1278471161621; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com (mail-vw0-f41.google.com [209.85.212.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id f13si3620887qcq.5.2010.07.06.19.52.40; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.41; Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1so9090540vws.0 for ; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.62.72 with SMTP id w8mr3031617vch.61.1278471160124; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.165.206 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100302162057.GA14827@alice.local> <20100706004832.GL23879@digitalkingdom.org> <20100706164224.GA30521@alice.local> <20100706193633.GE1443@digitalkingdom.org> <20100706194349.GE31169@alice.local> <20100707002416.GA25062@sdf.lonestar.org> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:52:39 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: lo do ckiku ma zvati From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e8878115adcb1048ac3439c --e0cb4e8878115adcb1048ac3439c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 So one argument I keep hearing for {cu} first and {ku} later is that it's much faster to learn "street lojban" and then learn the technicalities of elision and whatnot. But from what lindar was saying, it sounds like "the long/not-street" way of teaching (ku then cu) takes about 30-90 minutes. "It gets newbies speaking in full sentences faster" seems like a moot point when the alternative (and better IMO) way only takes about an hour to learn. On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > My two cents to all of this: > I'm newish but relatively comfortable. I came into the community after > going through LFB (I can't guarantee I was done when I first came, but I was > close). I worked some of the exercises in the chapters (maybe up to chapter > 7 or so) but eventually I found myself trying to hack sentences together in > a nonlinear fashion, and so I used it as a reference basically, until I felt > comfortable enough and had sufficiently technical questions that I thought I > should join the IRC and mailing lists. > > So I learned {cu} first, terminators second. I didn't actually like this in > the end (obviously at the time I didn't know any better). I think putting > off terminators made them seem kinda intimidating. I got them, but they were > one of the things that gave me more hesitation. On the other hand, I think > that filling in every elidable terminator, and even more so using > terminators AND {cu}, in sample sentences directed at beginners, is a > horrible idea, much worse than starting with {cu}*. The sentences get > horribly complicated, and a lot of the elidable terminators are very very > rarely actually useful. I know a circumstance when {vau} is useful having to > do with a certain construction involving GIhA but it's a pretty hard > circumstance to run into, for example. And in this example, to me, that > means that it is silly to teach {vau} to a newbie. If there were even > remotely common circumstances when you needed it, it would be great to teach > it, but with {vau} you have to go to quite a bit of effort to construct a > relevant example, let alone incorporate a relevant example into a discussion > of an actual topic. > > So start with {ku}. When you get to abstractors, teach {kei}. When you get > to {be}, teach {be'o}. When you get to {poi}/{noi}, teach {ku'o}. Around the > time when you start needing two terminators (probably around the time that > you get to abstractors), mention that there's a faster way that is usually > used, and maybe teach it at that time. Or maybe wait until you run into > three terminators (maybe around the time you hit {be} and then attempt to > synthesize knowledge by putting sumti with internal sumti inside > abstractors). But in short, don't teach {cu} first, imo. It can do too many > things to be taught that early on, and so a person that starts with it will > learn the ways that it fails in a much more hackish way, I think; by > contrast, {ku}, {kei}, etc. all do pretty much one thing, and so if they are > the foundation and {cu} is the icing, there won't tend to be confusion so > much as inefficiency. (And people have already shown examples of {cu} > causing inefficiency). > > This all assumes the "learning Lojban to learn it, not to use it ASAP" > hypothesis stated above, of course, which I think is probably pretty good > here. This is also all based on conjecture, not data. > > *I think that sentence is ungrammatical but I don't know how to fix it, > sorry. > > mu'oi mi'e latros. > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Minimiscience wrote: > >> de'i li 06 pi'e 07 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Lindar .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra. >> > ... and then you start seeing confused newbies that don't actually know >> how >> > to terminate that say things like {mi cu dunda zo'e zo'e} (I have >> actually >> > seen stuff like this). >> .skamyxatra >> >> "{mi cu dunda}" is actually perfectly grammatically correct. (It's >> unnecessarily verbose and arguably bad style, but if that's your sole >> objection >> to it, you might want to look in the mirror.) "{cu}" means "the {bridi}'s >> main >> {selbri} starts here," which implies the termination of anything before >> it, >> rather than termination being the primary concept and the main {selbri} >> aspect >> secondary. The only (non-obvious) grammatical restriction on "{cu}" is >> that it >> must be preceded by at least one term in the sentence, where a "term" can >> be a >> {sumti} (including descriptor {sumti} and pro-{sumti}), a termset, a >> {sumti} >> tagged with a {sumti tcita}, a bare BAI KU, a NA KU, or even a FA KU. >> >> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. >> >> -- >> lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Lojban Beginners" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lojban Beginners" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. --e0cb4e8878115adcb1048ac3439c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So one argument I keep hearing for {cu} first and {ku} later is that it'= ;s much faster to learn "street lojban" and then learn the techni= calities of elision and whatnot. =A0But from what lindar was saying, it sou= nds like "the long/not-street" way of teaching (ku then cu) takes= about 30-90 minutes. =A0"It gets newbies speaking in full sentences f= aster" seems like a moot point when the alternative (and better IMO) w= ay only takes about an hour to learn.

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ian Johnson= <blindbrava= do@gmail.com> wrote:
My two cents to all of this:
I'm newish but relatively comfortable. = I came into the community after going through LFB (I can't guarantee I = was done when I first came, but I was close). I worked some of the exercise= s in the chapters (maybe up to chapter 7 or so) but eventually I found myse= lf trying to hack sentences together in a nonlinear fashion, and so I used = it as a reference basically, until I felt comfortable enough and had suffic= iently technical questions that I thought I should join the IRC and mailing= lists.

So I learned {cu} first, terminators second. I didn't actually like= this in the end (obviously at the time I didn't know any better). I th= ink putting off terminators made them seem kinda intimidating. I got them, = but they were one of the things that gave me more hesitation. On the other = hand, I think that filling in every elidable terminator, and even more so u= sing terminators AND {cu}, in sample sentences directed at beginners, is a = horrible idea, much worse than starting with {cu}*. The sentences get horri= bly complicated, and a lot of the elidable terminators are very very rarely= actually useful. I know a circumstance when {vau} is useful having to do w= ith a certain construction involving GIhA but it's a pretty hard circum= stance to run into, for example. And in this example, to me, that means tha= t it is silly to teach {vau} to a newbie. If there were even remotely commo= n circumstances when you needed it, it would be great to teach it, but with= {vau} you have to go to quite a bit of effort to construct a relevant exam= ple, let alone incorporate a relevant example into a discussion of an actua= l topic.

So start with {ku}. When you get to abstractors, teach {kei}. When you = get to {be}, teach {be'o}. When you get to {poi}/{noi}, teach {ku'o= }. Around the time when you start needing two terminators (probably around = the time that you get to abstractors), mention that there's a faster wa= y that is usually used, and maybe teach it at that time. Or maybe wait unti= l you run into three terminators (maybe around the time you hit {be} and th= en attempt to synthesize knowledge by putting sumti with internal sumti ins= ide abstractors). But in short, don't teach {cu} first, imo. It can do = too many things to be taught that early on, and so a person that starts wit= h it will learn the ways that it fails in a much more hackish way, I think;= by contrast, {ku}, {kei}, etc. all do pretty much one thing, and so if the= y are the foundation and {cu} is the icing, there won't tend to be conf= usion so much as inefficiency. (And people have already shown examples of {= cu} causing inefficiency).

This all assumes the "learning Lojban to learn it, not to use it A= SAP" hypothesis stated above, of course, which I think is probably pre= tty good here. This is also all based on conjecture, not data.

*I think that sentence is ungrammatical but I don't know how to fix it, sorry.

mu'oi mi'e latros.
=
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Minimiscienc= e <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
de'i li 06 pi'e= 07 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Lindar .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> ... and then you start seeing confused newbies that don't actually= know how
> to terminate that say things like {mi cu dunda zo'e zo'e}= (I have actually
> seen stuff like this).
.skamyxatra

"{mi cu dunda}" is actually perfectly grammatically correct. =A0(= It's
unnecessarily verbose and arguably bad style, but if that's your sole o= bjection
to it, you might want to look in the mirror.) =A0"{cu}" means &qu= ot;the {bridi}'s main
{selbri} starts here," which implies the termination of anything befor= e it,
rather than termination being the primary concept and the main {selbri} asp= ect
secondary. =A0The only (non-obvious) grammatical restriction on "{cu}&= quot; is that it
must be preceded by at least one term in the sentence, where a "term&q= uot; can be a
{sumti} (including descriptor {sumti} and pro-{sumti}), a termset, a {sumti= }
tagged with a {sumti tcita}, a bare BAI KU, a NA KU, or even a FA KU.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--e0cb4e8878115adcb1048ac3439c--