Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]:53901) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RxNyo-0003Hk-Lu; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:24:04 -0800 Received: by pbbjt11 with SMTP id jt11sf1020913pbb.16 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:23:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :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=huvieZSc/7dewO3fB2p0aUilc3ycuiNlUM+k8gSKj50=; b=HxIoJYug8wbTJNvCq+vngh93moBOIPFYVotSYjjQye6a+WA53vLzSgu9m5zV2uABFf H8cTIRj6zdXbr+hMnp1Rl4NieRYCTaV8/ZNkC3xqQ/2ad3eWkwYUcUm3csDhOZp+VQfd VeQG6QPgr/ufG8SbJQOuDVU7fqT33WZsTMU28= Received: by 10.68.122.194 with SMTP id lu2mr1322079pbb.7.1329247430551; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.237.10 with SMTP id uy10ls2565597pbc.3.gmail; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.241.37 with SMTP id wf5mr13366126pbc.4.1329247430051; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.241.37 with SMTP id wf5mr13366125pbc.4.1329247430042; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from stodi.digitalkingdom.org (mail.digitalkingdom.org. [173.13.139.236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n6si3282301pbg.2.2012.02.14.11.23.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:23:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.236 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.236; Received: from rlpowell by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RxNye-0003Hh-Ko for lojban@googlegroups.com; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] About the word "fluent". Message-ID: <20120214192348.GX2167@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com References: <20120214184839.GW2167@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <4F3AB350.9050304@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F3AB350.9050304@gmx.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.236 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Taking this out of order. On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:17:36PM +0100, selpa'i wrote: > I'm not sure the bushmen analogy holds. I wouldn't be surprised if > the bushmen were in fact able to communicate just fine, the only > thing is that they would have to resort to their limited > vocabulary, but they would be able to describe things anyway. They > might call skyscrapers "heaven houses" or whatever, and the cars > "magic horses" or whatnot, but they *would* be able to express > themselves fluently. I think that's really optomistic. Sure, they might call the cars "magic horses", but they wouldn't both instantly think of that, or agree on it. They'd be like "Uhh, that... thingy... what the hell should we call that?" "Ummm, I dunno. Fast box?" "That's kind of lame. How about magic horse?" "Oh, yeah, that'll work." [ignoring that bushmen don't have horses, or anything like them (that is: things humans ride to go faster), to the best of my knowledge] You seem to be assuming that they'd instantly come up with the appropriate new vocab, which I think is deeply unreasonable. > Here's my opinion: > > You are not fluent in Lojban, based on what you described. I'm not sure I disagree; my point was mostly that whether you call me "fluent" or not depends a great deal more on what "fluent" means to you than on my actual abilities. > And it doesn't matter what the reasons for that are, the fact > stays the same. Then it is physically impossible to be fluent in Lojban at this time, because this will happen all the time every day until idiom is built up. Which is fine, I just want to be sure you understand what you're asserting. > You are right that Lojban might not yet be equipped for every kind > of topic you might want to speak about, but this doesn't change > the fact that you are not fluent. Needing a long time to describe > relatively basic things in a language means that one lacks > practice in that area and/or that one hasn't been exposed enough > to this context. I would argue that you should be able to express > the vast majority of things you need to express using the version > of Lojban that exists right now, as long as you know every gismu > like the back of your hand (and know all the cmavo and grammar, of > course). That is, I believe it's possible to make do with what we > have right now, I agree, and I did. > and if one is fluent then one is able to do just that in a fluent > fashion. I think you are unreasonably optimistic about what "in a fluent fashion" means. > This doesn't mean that it's purely a short-coming on your part; > it's just the way things are at the moment and as the language > matures, we mature with it. *nod* -Robin -- 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.