From lojban-beginners+bncCICntNPQBRCX_M3hBBoEabSiSg@googlegroups.com Tue Jul 06 12:04:19 2010 Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OWDR0-00084B-Qr; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:04:19 -0700 Received: by pzk26 with SMTP id 26sf762195pzk.16 for ; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:03:52 -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 :mime-version:received:received:date:in-reply-to:x-ip:references :user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=xqYP6vg8OPPblHdDbBm+y7hFratLPJkncyHy1iihWyA=; b=2SGDdVWmoO2tY8eWg9sAMW3HheWOx8nmyPfCDcuuX70WKSkHl54udyXhY4NLr9u8U8 f5L8vFI/y5M/SGjLtgLgGerQIemn9IOVvBCQNjUUVciajVSmNiP6I9mejGGzD+qh9R74 ASCnUcTgaPyj8sDs8Ku1n6UkMPxmhQK/AEsxA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:x-ip:references :user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=TccI4c00IynNTruv40lOukKKqOLgr+WrJW6vuLnK27vjpGYu1ZqUP/Sy4JtaqnJIev CsVIEByVqlm+3Y87K0Uh7j2r6D8PS1nKSwYdhtxFJGn0EMJvAWXZ0IqasuzbszrAISKr 17vh8KESrZYGlDo845s4G9iWtPdOyMwSjcsxk= Received: by 10.142.121.35 with SMTP id t35mr319051wfc.0.1278443031243; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:03:51 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.143.26.15 with SMTP id d15ls650240wfj.2.p; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.158.13 with SMTP id g13mr873614wfe.33.1278443030683; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:03:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.79.11 with SMTP id c11mr478760agb.37.1278442806569; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:00:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-IP: 173.196.20.139 References: <20100302162057.GA14827@alice.local> <20100706004832.GL23879@digitalkingdom.org> <20100706164224.GA30521@alice.local> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) Message-ID: Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lo do ckiku ma zvati From: Lindar To: Lojban Beginners X-Original-Sender: lindarthebard@yahoo.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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Not eliding those terminators makes even the simplest statements seem > horribly complicated. I believe that the best way to teach elidable > terminators is to teach them in such constructs as they are NOT elidable. To > tell someone "This word means this, but is hardly ever used for this > reason", likely tells that person "This isn't important, don't bother > remembering it". But to say instead, "This new word here, which means this, > is required in the sentence for this reason", seems to myself to have more, > um, staying power. I'm sorry, this is a horrible idea. In my experience I know this, and all of the newest teaching material reflects this. Teach terminators as if they're required, and don't even mention that {cu} exists. It's possible to go for months without using {cu}, so why teach it until it's necessary (namely when sentences start to sound like "kei ku kei ku kei kui *selbri*")? Which do you think is easier? 1. "Yeah, in this one particular circumstance you need this thing called "ku" that you just have to use because you can't use "cu" there, but you still have to have something there... cos... I said so... 2. "Well, now here's a cute trick. Right here, we don't actually need "ku", because it reads the same either way." Sometimes you need it for random strange reasons with convoluted rules, or you learn that you always need it and sometimes it can be left off. For pedagogical reasons, option 2 has proven time and time again to be the better alternative that results in much better diction/word-choice/ phrasing. Please don't teach or use {cu} until you've gotten well past things like abstractions, and even then, don't use it unless it's absolutely necessary for the sake of brevity (ex: {.i lo nu mi broda be lo brode be lo brodi bei lo brodo be lo brodu cu co'e} instead of {.i lo nu mi broda be lo brode be lo brodi ku bei lo brodo be lo brodu ku be'o ku be'o ku be'o ku kei ku co'e}). -- 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.