Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]:42597)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNTPpI2KGxCFtZP4BBoEK2gQiQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RiZqy-000201-5R; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:02:45 -0800
Received: by qcsr14 with SMTP id r14sf33735666qcs.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:02:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references
         :in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id: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:content-disposition;
        bh=imTqN0h/57x5kZvH/hYpcLdBpZDkb+VaoI59cFL/uoM=;
        b=qkfQIrjZw+qvmfKzEQsmiu/MzX/bwN4K8y2OicEWr0IjLxPFdcx8bF2mpRTp13XVBR
         BWZOKOWqjpARahih+YES1vXmjwBmspjRK9chenIaJlnyrLH4xuIMwSjKfQRB2YbSD1NY
         ZuYy9XXi9QrknWOXnVMu2qo56FqtIQzInm9UQ=
Received: by 10.229.75.144 with SMTP id y16mr15640qcj.3.1325718149582;
        Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:02:29 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.100.134.16 with SMTP id h16ls22001294and.4.gmail; Wed, 04 Jan
 2012 15:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.130.20 with SMTP id h20mr5346699ann.3.1325718148192;
        Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.130.20 with SMTP id h20mr5346697ann.3.1325718148173;
        Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chausie (cpe-069-132-101-103.carolina.res.rr.com. [69.132.101.103])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id e38si39923832ana.0.2012.01.04.15.02.27;
        Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 69.132.101.103 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) client-ip=69.132.101.103;
Received: from ip6-localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC8A17BFF
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed,  4 Jan 2012 18:02:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Conversational ability test.
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:02:17 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
References: <20120104181701.GQ20463@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <CALm==BWmBV3H+u0oNZO28ygOSmyoWOgQSVKAEbQ=38dcZSsxEw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALm==BWmBV3H+u0oNZO28ygOSmyoWOgQSVKAEbQ=38dcZSsxEw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <201201041802.19801.phma@phma.optus.nu>
X-Original-Sender: phma@phma.optus.nu
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 69.132.101.103 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
 domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) smtp.mail=phma@phma.optus.nu
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Wednesday 04 January 2012 13:40:36 .arpis. wrote:
> Are "sentences" made up of lojban words which are incorrect
> grammatically lojban? What about if both people misuse (by implicit
> contract) certain words (I can't think of a good example now)? What if
> they habitually forget to separate the main bridi from the sumti
> before it? What about lojban with a lot of "zoi" and "zo'oi" and "me
> la"? Where is the line drawn between incorrect lojban, bad lojban, and
> not lojban?

I think that using bare foreign words should be penalized more heavily than 
quoting them with ZOI, which should be penalized more heavily than 
grammatical errors. It may be difficult or impossible, in certain cases, to 
avoid foreign words. For example:
(alis) .i ko lebna le .arxokuna le tricu
(bab) le moki'a
(alis) .arxokuna
(bab) lo .arxokuna cu mo
(alis) me la'o sy. mapache .sy.
(bab) ua .i mi punji le .arxokuna ma
I'd ignore, or score very lightly, the sorts of errors that everyone makes 
when speaking, even in his native language. For example, I've heard a Spanish 
speaker say "otro", then realize that the noun he's about to say is feminine, 
then say "otra" and the noun. Of course, until we have some native Lojban 
speakers with enough proficiency, we can only guess what sorts of errors 
those will be , but here's one example. You mean to say "jmina", but get the 
nasals mixed up, and half devoice the "j", resulting in something 
between "cnima" and "jnima". You then say "si", but you don't know which the 
listener heard. The preceding word is a CV cmavo like "mi". So you don't know 
whether the hearer is erasing one word "cnima" or two "mi jnima".

Pierre
-- 
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.