2012/2/15 david demartin &= lt;david= andresloquehay@gmail.com>

hey Robin, I think the guys here have a point:
speaking fluently is spe= aking accuratly with speed and ease.
it is not so vage a notion that we= should stop using it.

if you think that, like a bushman in time sq= uare, you are able to reason aloud (even if it is not interesting for the k= ids) with the language you already know, at a reasonable pace... I think TH= AT would deserve to be called "fluent".

Now the problem I think you are raising is that, even if your where ind= eed fluent in that sense, you still DO have to deliberate on how to call ne= w objects. And that is not the kind of deliberation you would like to serve= a child... so, in that kind of situation, even though being "fluent&q= uot;, you'd still opt to be silent quite a lot.

so, are you fluent Robin ?

:-) best -=A0David Demartin
=

2012/2/15 Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>

Sajesh: did you mean to add something here?<= br>
-Robin

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:38:18PM +0100, Sajesh 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. =A0Sure, they might call the= cars
> >"magic horses", but they wouldn't both instantly thi= nk of that, or
> >agree on it. =A0They'd be like "Uhh, that... thingy... wh= at the hell
> >should we call that?" "Ummm, I dunno. =A0Fast box?"= =A0"That's kind of
> >lame. =A0How about magic horse?" "Oh, yeah, that'll = work." =A0[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.<= br> >
> >>And it doesn't matter what the reasons for that are, the f= act
> >>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.
>
> >"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= .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googl= egroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/= lojban?hl=3Den.
>
>

--
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@googlegrou= ps.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 &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.