From sentto-44114-23080-1095862651-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 07:18:36 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.84]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CA7wb-0003J9-6m for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:18:05 -0700 Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2004 14:17:33 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email X-Sender: keighvin@gmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 79801 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 14:17:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2004 14:17:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.91) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2004 14:17:30 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.137] by n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2004 14:17:20 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5b.599daccc.2e82ba16@wmconnect.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.91 From: "keighvin" X-Originating-IP: 67.108.242.111 X-Yahoo-Profile: keighvin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:17:20 -0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: tanru exercise Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-archive-position: 8648 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: keighvin@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list > > It's an article of faith that people are supposed to be able to understand > > a lujvo, or its underlying tanru, that they have never heard before. > > Usually it works pretty well, but this one fell on its face. > > No, I think the test worked very well. It just shows that the concept is not > one that people were familiar enough with to know what you were talking > about, especially since there was NO context at all, which is unrealistic. Which brings up the question of context in general. Most idioms rely on the familiarity of the listener/reader with an implied context for completion. As has already been indicated here, the context was not common enough to be readily understood (DNA was not included in any portion of the phrase despite the direct and immediate association with the same). In a language such as lojban then, with such a focus on the exactness of communication and lack of ambiguitiy, when does it become appropriate to rely on an assumption of pre-existing cultural context, and when should a statement be extended (and by how much/to what degree of granularity) to carry the additional meaning itself? - .kaivyn ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/