Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:62594)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCK30vq5WEPj46_kEGgQj38ok@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RxSkr-0004u7-Cu; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:29:59 -0800
Received: by ggnm2 with SMTP id m2sf438177ggn.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:29:47 -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=IfWD8YipXZ8J0DHztFZyJiGJBmLLw0DQJuO03esHqqE=;
        b=W/3LR2c4MTIVebmQAEuFLSqBdR7uwd9dxwZPUfB/b2hgU3UiHMyvD9kUk4nQterIIh
         aiwxbYQKv2CDlE7AqWW3Y0+PsDfGfrY7koS8vaQ9avbq+4p98VQgETv39EjOQ6KGWNiA
         wdKbOoMGFC/gggCH1BojLQzVg+WyzQzs4Eg10=
Received: by 10.68.199.166 with SMTP id jl6mr4321070pbc.17.1329265784383;
        Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:29:44 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.35.167 with SMTP id i7ls3311685pbj.1.gmail; Tue, 14 Feb
 2012 16:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.226.10 with SMTP id ro10mr13939246pbc.6.1329265783847;
        Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.226.10 with SMTP id ro10mr13939245pbc.6.1329265783835;
        Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stodi.digitalkingdom.org (mail.digitalkingdom.org. [173.13.139.236])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n6si4173490pbg.2.2012.02.14.16.29.43
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:29:43 -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 <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>)
	id 1RxSkg-0004u3-Oz
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:29:42 -0800
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:29:42 -0800
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] About the word "fluent".
Message-ID: <20120215002942.GC2167@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <20120214184839.GW2167@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
 <CAHiXx=P-s_Mue90KrGVFjShCHekctXc==vv0crbaCETaNBjfGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHiXx=OWToZXAHEx5q=Xh6O9s9Umn3kf4AwdjaW-r-TDg1v9cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F3ABB38.5090906@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F3ABB38.5090906@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: <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:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
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: /

This conversation *exactly* demonstrates my point, which was "don't
use the word fluent, as it just leads to confusion".  In that sense,
the rest of the convo is pointless, but feel free to read anyways.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:51:20PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:
> Am 14.02.2012 20:23, schrieb Robin Lee Powell:
> >On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:17:36PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:
> >>I'm not sure the bushmen analogy holds. li'o
> >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.
>
> I think what you described there is a very fluent conversation in
> which two individuals agree on a name for a new object. Fluency is
> real-time creativity and it's being demonstrated here.

Yes, and I can absolutely do that.  That conversation described
above would be no problem for me.

> >>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.
> >
> And here I disagree. I am asserting that with the current Lojban,
> you *can* be fluent. Not having lujvo for some things doesn't mean
> you can't talk about them by describing them in "simpler" terms.

Which is exactly what I did, so what's your point?

> >"That is, I believe it's possible to make do with what we have
> >right now, "
> >I agree, and I did.
>
> You did, but it took you time and effort. Fluency means speed and ease.

Wait, what?  First of all, you just changed your story; above it was
about making do, and now it's about making do in a certain time
frame that you get to specify, which is obnoxious.

Secondly, how is the example bushman convo I wrote out above not
time and effort?

I didn't have anyone else to talk to (the babies being too young),
so I paused to think about it rather than throwing ideas out for
consideration.  I'm not seeing how this fails to meet your criteria,
if your criteria are coherent, which I'm not sure they are.

-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.