From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Nov 08 20:48:36 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gi1po-0003AN-Cf for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:48:16 -0800 Received: from pi.meson.org ([66.134.26.207]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gi1pk-0003AF-5s for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:48:16 -0800 Received: (qmail 21092 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2006 04:48:09 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2006 04:48:09 -0000 Message-ID: <4552B309.4070501@kli.org> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:48:09 -0500 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: "la" in names References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12967 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Yanis Batura wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Lee Powell > To: lojban-list@lojban.org > Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:18:14 -0800 > Subject: [lojban] Re: "la" in names > > >> Not a single Lojbanist has *ever* internalized this rule. We know >> this because *every* major Lojbanist has made this mistake, and it >> showed up in "What Is Lojban?", which was proofread by at least 3 >> major Lojbanists. >> >> We have no evidence, at all, that anyone can internalize this rule. >> It's not about whether the rule is good or not. I don't mind in the >> slightest that "la" isn't allowed; that's the least of what we have >> to do to Lojbanize names. The problem is not what the rule >> requires, the problem is that *we can't follow it*, and we've >> *proven* we can't. >> > > Hmmm... From the logical point of view... Lojban is a bit pertaining to logic, > isn't it?... Someone cannot *prove* that he cannot do something :) Proven can only > be a fact that someone *can* do something, by doing that. I suggest that you > use "shown" or "demonstrated" instead of "proven". > > I am absolutely sure that a native Lojban speaker will have the rule comfortly > sitting in his/her brain. I am absolutely sure that given a good special training > we will all internalize this rule. > I'm sure it's possible. But you're being pedantic. OK, we didn't *prove* it's actually impossible. What has happened, though, is that our experience has demonstrated that even very careful and very committed people working for a reasonably long length of time, have failed to internalize it. Could it possibly maybe happen if we just waited another three or four centuries for it to sink in (per person, that is)? Well, maybe, but in practical terms things just aren't working. Lojban is supposed to be a human-speakable language, and a language whose fairly major underpinnings you're still screwing up (and enshrining in writing and codifying as names for future generations) after decades of study is not of the same order as human languages. This is something that isn't working, and while maybe it is, indeed, learnable by someone with only another 40-50 years of practice, I would say that even under those circumstances, that *still* qualifies as not working. ~mark To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.