Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f61.google.com ([209.85.215.61]:62549) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RxO1W-0003KG-J0; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:55 -0800 Received: by lagz14 with SMTP id z14sf253926lag.16 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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=xX3YBtg0eHh84+M5iX0cC7BWY98zZfwOFxUHnCRldLg=; b=1cCChSC3OBKNILW0DB654h2A/nDGjxKqJoXDsnXElhLJygWLoPNCTe/Qd9hKmHhhrC vz5791bytFyb7AKG9XK353hvzSjgwtnF7hNU/MyvbH6WOvxHveUGGh1isci2kpnYLEHK BeFJE39Li+AAFH9USL86wS75frt0hE+vTvEcc= Received: by 10.204.151.69 with SMTP id b5mr1444215bkw.18.1329247596399; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:36 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.17.69 with SMTP id r5ls318556bka.2.gmail; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.155.75 with SMTP id r11mr2022541bkw.7.1329247594548; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.155.75 with SMTP id r11mr2022540bkw.7.1329247594520; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f43.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ba12si538200bkb.2.2012.02.14.11.26.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.43; Received: by lagp5 with SMTP id p5so419081lag.2 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.112.132 with SMTP id iq4mr15110876lab.28.1329247594120; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.66.177 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120214184839.GW2167@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> References: <20120214184839.GW2167@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> From: MorphemeAddict Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:26:14 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] About the word "fluent". To: lojban@googlegroups.com, lojban-list@lojban.org X-Original-Sender: lytlesw@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lytlesw@gmail.com; dkim=pass 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=f46d0408d673aa852404b8f1929c X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --f46d0408d673aa852404b8f1929c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I use a somewhat different definition of 'fluent'. If you can get your point across, even (or especially) if you have to paraphrase, then you are fluent. I think you passed with ease. The US Department of Defense use still a different, more specific definition. More complete definitions exist, but they're harder to find. "LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL DEFINITION Language Proficiency Level I: Speaking: Reading: Able to satisfy minimum courtesy requirements and maintain very simple face-to- face conversations on familiar topics. Sufficient comprehension to read very simple connected written material. Language Proficiency Level II: Speaking: Reading: Able to satisfy most work requirements with language usage that is acceptable and effective. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social and professional topics. Able to read within a normal range of speed and with almost complete comprehension a variety of material on unfamiliar subjects. Can comprehend a variety of styles and forms pertinent to professional needs. Rarely misinterprets texts. Language Proficiency Level III: Speaking: Reading: Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Language usage and ability to function are fully successful. Able to read fluently and accurately all styles and forms of the language pertinent to professional needs." stevo On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Robin Lee Powell < rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > (This sort of dovetails with the earlier thread about how "lock two > people in a room and present them with two-person puzzles of various > complexity" as a way of producing somewhat "objective" fluency > tests) > > OK, so people keep asking me if I'm fluent. > > When I ask people what they mean by fluent, they usually say > something that boils down to "you can say whatever you need to say". > > So, let me give you an example of why that metric *simply doesn't > work* in the case of Lojban. > > The other day RJ was watching basketball, and I was playing with one > of the babies, and she was, surprisingly, avidly watching the TV. > Having nothing better to do, I decided to explain basketball to her, > in minimal detail. > > This took me the better part of 10 minutes, and involved a great > deal of stammering and long pauses. > > I could re-do it in a couple of minutes of smooth Lojban. > > The issue is simple: to the best of my knowledge, *no-one* has > *ever* described or talked about basketball in Lojban before. So I > had to come up with terms for the name of the game itself {ti poi > nanmu cu ci'erkei la julne bolci}, the act of dribbling {bolci minra > gasnu}, the concept of travelling {bajra se cau lo nu [go'i]}, and > making a basket {punji le bolci le julne}. > > I think that anyone asking me if I'm fluent that saw that would say > "that was halting and lame; no, you're not", but what if I explained > to them that no-one has ever done that before? That I had to make > everything up as I went along? > > The word "fluent" simply doesn't effectively apply in a context > where the language is so under-used that any speaker *regularily* > encounters situations in which no idiom or terminology exists, at > all. It's like putting two bushmen in Time's square, asking them to > describe what they see, and then accusing them of not being fluent > in their native tongue, except with everything. > > -Robin > > -- > http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. > .i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e > lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e > lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni > li'u > > -- > 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. > > -- 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. --f46d0408d673aa852404b8f1929c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I use a somewhat different definition of 'fluent'. If you can get y= our point across, even (or especially) if you have to paraphrase, then you = are fluent. I think you passed with ease.

The US De= partment of Defense use still a different, more specific definition. More c= omplete definitions exist, but they're harder to find.=A0

"LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL DEFINITION
<= div>
Language Proficiency Level I:

S= peaking:

Reading:

Able to= satisfy minimum courtesy requirements and maintain very simple face-to-
face conversations on familiar topics.

Suffic= ient comprehension to read very simple connected written material.

Language Proficiency Level II:

Speaking:

Reading:

Able t= o satisfy most work requirements with language usage that is acceptable
and effective. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural=
accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and<= /div>
informal conversations on practical, social and professional topi= cs.

Able to read within a normal range of speed an= d with almost complete comprehension a
variety of material on unfamiliar subjects. Can comprehend a variety o= f styles and forms
pertinent to professional needs. Rarely misint= erprets texts.

Language Proficiency Level III:

Speaking:

Reading:
<= br>
Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all level= s normally pertinent to
professional needs. Language usage and ab= ility to function are fully successful.

Able to read fluently and accurately all styles and for= ms of the language pertinent to
professional needs."

stevo

On Tue, Feb= 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>= wrote:

(This sort of dovetails with the earlier thread about how "lock two people in a room and present them with two-person puzzles of various
complexity" as a way of producing somewhat "objective" fluen= cy
tests)

OK, so people keep asking me if I'm fluent.

When I ask people what they mean by fluent, they usually say
something that boils down to "you can say whatever you need to say&quo= t;.

So, let me give you an example of why that metric *simply doesn't
work* in the case of Lojban.

The other day RJ was watching basketball, and I was playing with one
of the babies, and she was, surprisingly, avidly watching the TV.
Having nothing better to do, I decided to explain basketball to her,
in minimal detail.

This took me the better part of 10 minutes, and involved a great
deal of stammering and long pauses.

I could re-do it in a couple of minutes of smooth Lojban.

The issue is simple: to the best of my knowledge, *no-one* has
*ever* described or talked about basketball in Lojban before. =A0So I
had to come up with terms for the name of the game itself {ti poi
nanmu cu ci'erkei la julne bolci}, the act of dribbling {bolci minra gasnu}, the concept of travelling {bajra se cau lo nu [go'i]}, and
making a basket {punji le bolci le julne}.

I think that anyone asking me if I'm fluent that saw that would say
"that was halting and lame; no, you're not", but what if I ex= plained
to them that no-one has ever done that before? =A0That I had to make
everything up as I went along?

The word "fluent" simply doesn't effectively apply in a conte= xt
where the language is so under-used that any speaker *regularily*
encounters situations in which no idiom or terminology exists, at
all. =A0It's like putting two bushmen in Time's square, asking them= to
describe what they see, and then accusing them of not being fluent
in their native tongue, except with everything.

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/= : =A0Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u = .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e = lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mam= ta be do cu sofybakni li'u

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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.
--f46d0408d673aa852404b8f1929c--