Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:34315) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RNtI6-0005c0-2v; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:33:18 -0800 Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf699375bka.16 for ; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:33:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from :to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=NLYiaK+qLCDCAxPuyty62Yj7kCrd63wMnHTf9Y2WA/g=; b=tvgBKuPTGMVHEWoN3sY7Pd7O69Ju098XIDMzYLUm6q4pbFsD5JLmu+0Qmz9F6zglwQ DpF36eSfANQeJQmBFXlOwkKXDEzeZkPK/vzvgA5smXGQVxiwBkvU6A4ZVRUhDR+zWTtD hG6KU5zBxIb1mR0hi5CfpLqDGxLoio99hqe1M= Received: by 10.205.114.13 with SMTP id ey13mr2527957bkc.32.1320787979769; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:32:59 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.200.144 with SMTP id ew16ls2470907bkb.2.gmail; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.148.84 with SMTP id o20mr4005309bkv.6.1320787977922; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.148.84 with SMTP id o20mr4005308bkv.6.1320787977898; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f41.google.com (mail-bw0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ew9si455590bkb.3.2011.11.08.13.32.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.41; Received: by mail-bw0-f41.google.com with SMTP id s6so1048881bka.0 for ; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:32:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.132.17 with SMTP id hs17mr3144069bkc.96.1320787977334; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.41.68 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:32:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:32:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Logical languages impossible to Learn? From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cfb0a366dc104b13fea28 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --0015175cfb0a366dc104b13fea28 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://www.babelsdawn.com/babels_dawn/2008/08/on-human-nature.html: "It is generally said that an infant can learn any language, but it turns out to be relatively easy to invent languages that many people cannot learn at all. Logical languages (loglans)have been invented as tools for unambiguously expressing some formal, logical statements, and it turns out that people have a tremendous difficulty learning them. What=92s more, these languages require the prior existence of a working natural language before they can be learned even a bit. They have to be explained logically rather than learned by listening. The reason seems to reflect the critical difference between a loglan and a natural language. Loglans express formal concepts while natural languages pilot attention. In a loglan the fundamental challenge is to keep everything unambiguous, and sometimes this procedure requires multiple embeddings that would be impossible in natural speech because they disrupt attention. In natural languages, ambiguity is less of an issue because the context helps keep matters clear. The really important thing is for speakers to make it easy for a listener to follow the thread of what=92s being said. Embeddings can only come at certain attentional breakpoints, and too many embeddings leave a listener confused. But, it is possible for some determined learners to become conversational in a loglan. Presumably there are one or two freakish situations right now in which an infant is picking up bits and pieces of a loglan along with some other language. The flexibility of human nature can never be forgotten or dismissed. There is a very wide variety of verbal expression possible: logical, metaphorical, joking, analytical, =85 I don=92t know if there is an upper limit. But it begins with perception and directing attention, which in turn rests on a community" Prove him wrong, Robin! Prove him wrong! --gejyspa --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --0015175cfb0a366dc104b13fea28 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"It is generally said that an infant can learn any language, but = it turns out to be relatively easy to invent languages that many people can= not learn at all. Logical languages (loglans) have been invented as tools = for unambiguously expressing some formal, logical statements, and it turns = out that people have a tremendous difficulty learning them. What=92s more, = these languages require the prior existence of a working natural language b= efore they can be learned even a bit. They have to be explained logically r= ather than learned by listening. The reason seems to reflect the critical d= ifference between a loglan and a natural language. Loglans express formal c= oncepts while natural languages pilot attention. In a loglan the fundamenta= l challenge is to keep everything unambiguous, and sometimes this procedure= requires multiple embeddings that would be impossible in natural speech be= cause they disrupt attention. In natural languages, ambiguity is less of an= issue because the context helps keep matters clear. The really important t= hing is for speakers to make it easy for a listener to follow the thread of= what=92s being said. Embeddings can only come at certain attentional break= points, and too many embeddings leave a listener confused. But, it is possi= ble for some determined learners to become conversational in a loglan. Pres= umably there are one or two freakish situations right now in which an infan= t is picking up bits and pieces of a loglan along with some other language.= The flexibility of human nature can never be forgotten or dismissed. There= is a very wide variety of verbal expression possible: logical, metaphorica= l, joking, analytical, =85 I don=92t know if there is an upper limit. But i= t begins with perception and directing attention, which in turn rests on a = community"
=A0
=A0 Prove him wrong, Robin!=A0 Prove him wrong!
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa
=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0015175cfb0a366dc104b13fea28--