= On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Adam Chevalier <chevali...@gmail.com> wrote:

My brain must have hiccuped, I meant fu'ivla.

I'm j= ust trying to provide constructive feedback for la gleki.
They ar= e one of a very few people that seem to have the time/drive/both to do work= on Lojban right now and I wanted to help steer the work in the right direc= tion.

Something I've noticed on this board is a strong reject= ion of any kind of change.
Almost comes across as "Lojban is perf= ect! Everything that the LLG has done is absolutely fine! We don't need to = improve on our methods!"

I'm of the opinion that improvements shoul= d be made as soon as problems are found, thus improving forward compatibili= ty. I don't have any sympathy at all for backward compatibility.

keu'cai cll 1.1 is not complete. Pe= rsonally i have no desire to analyse what bugs and problems in formatting a= re still present in it. You can see them yourself. Some of them are quite o= bvious.

stevo

I felt that I could offer a helpful point of view as a beginner.&nbs= p;

If you want to improve your product, ask the customers.
(obvious caveats about customers not knowing what they want/need of cours= e).

I will say this, I learned a lot more from LFB= then I did trying to slog through the CLL.

LFB isn't bad, it just can be better. I love Lojban and want it= to get the attention it deserves.

On Tuesday, February 26, 2= 013 3:23:37 AM UTC-6, stevo wrote:

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Adam C= hevalier <chevali...@gmail.com> wrote= :

On Friday, February 22, 2013 6:59:53 PM UTC-6, lojbab wrote:Adam Chevalier wrote:
> I had considered making my own version of L4B to take care of some
> things that, personally, put me off.
> There were a couple of Excercises that were "gotchas" and you don'= t want
> those in learning material for beginners
> (Mistranslating taipei under the auspices of "a b sounds like a p = in the
> local orthography" is a terrible excuse and it made it sound like = Robin
> was showing off)

> Of course, by reading this board for several months I know i= t wasn't
> intentional.

Actually, LFB was written by Nick Nicolas and Robin Turner, and the=20
example may have been used intentionally with international students=20
(who probably know English well enough to use LFB) in mind, rather than= =20
to "show off". The point is that the English pronunciation of for= eign=20
names is often NOT a legitimate basis for Lojbanizing that name. = You=20
want the native/local pronunciation if possible.

That isn't my point. taibei, as = a lojbanized name, isn't how its pronounced locally or in English.
If there intention was to teach that lesson, important as it is, they sho= uld have used a proper example.

> Some oth= er recommendations:
>
> 1) Try not to emphasize the concept of malglico so much.

Absolutely, one should do so. Lojban is NOT encoded English, and = if one=20
gets lazy, one will not be understood (or will be intentionally= =20
misunderstood by some people who are literal-minded and don't like=20
malglico).

I don't remember stating that Lo= jban was encoded English, or even implying it.
But the seeming em= phasis on malglico can come across as insulting, especially with gotchas li= ke ninmu.

> You /hav= e/ to
> explain lojban in English terms in order to teach it to an English
> audience, so translating ninmu to x1 is a woman and scolding the l= earner
> for assuming it means an adult isn't right (by the way, we have a = word
> for ninmu, its called female).

No. fetsi is the word for female, but is not limited to human(oid)s.=20
ninmu is a female human(oid) being, not necessarily adult. nixli is=20
expressly a girl (immature ninmu). The definition of ninmu in the= gismu=20
list specifically says that it is not necessarily an adult, so a learne= r=20
who assumes contrary to that definition probably deserves "scolding"=20
(though preferably in a gentle, constructive tone).

It doesn't matter whats in the g= ismu list, we are talking about LFB.
LFB specifically translates = it as x1 is a woman. If you are going to translate it to English imprope= rly you cannot scold them for misunderstanding.

The proper translation for ninmu, based on those gismu you just gave m= e, is x1 is a female humanoid.

> 2) Find ways to explain the concepts without resorting to "If you're a
> Mathematician, computer programmer, or a logician, its like these = things."

For some things derived from formal systems, like lambda calculus, I=20
suspect that it is difficult to manage this, but good luck.

I'm not talking about lambda cal= culus, i'm talking about predicate logic.
Saying "For programmers= , its like a parameter." And then just drop it for everyone else.

That is all I'm getting at. I'd like to see Lojban expand beyond hobby= ists and people in Math related fields.

> 3) Concepts and words related to language studies are confusing, pleas= e
> give some kind of definition for these concepts.

Technical terminology will often be opaque to someone not trained in th= e=20
relevant field. I was confused about grammar terms for years incl= uding=20
the first couple of years AFTER I started separating Lojban from TLI=20
Loglan. And even worse, sometimes technical terms have different= =20
meanings in colloquial English (e.g. the classic misuse of "theory" by= =20
creationists). The latter is why I went to using the Lojban words= =20
untranslated. There really is no English translation of tanru tha= t does=20
the concept justice.

I'm not talking about gismu, and= tanru, and jbo'ivla.

ma smuni zo jb= o'ivla

mi'e stevon

I'm talking about meta-lingui= stic terms.
Words about language that are thrown arou= nd that beginners are not likely to understand.

> &nb= sp; Anyway, what do you think, should we start updating it to reflec= t
> the latest improvements to the grammar and the way l= ojban should be
> taught?

The only approved change to the grammar is xorlo.

And there is no agreement on how Lojban "should be" taught.

I happen to like the way that Russian-written textbooks teach Russian,= =20
but it is considerably different from how American-written textbooks do= =20
so. Each is tailored to a certain style of teaching and a certain= =20
audience. "better" requires that you fill in ALL the places of xa= mgu,=20
including the standard. "correct" (drani), is even tougher; it al= so has=20
property and situation places besides the standard.

If someone wants to write a new intro textbook that embodies their own= =20
ideas for teaching the language, then go ahead and do so. But wri= te it=20
anew rather than "updating" what doesn't need an "update", and call it= =20
something different. Unlike CLL, which is part of the formal lang= uage=20
definition, beginning textbooks need not all be written to the same=20
standard.

lojbab