From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Nov 10 00:11:46 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GiRU0-0000JP-16 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:11:28 -0800 Received: from centrmmtao01.cox.net ([70.168.83.83]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GiRTu-0000JD-OW for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:11:27 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by centrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061110081125.LKJR2189.centrmmtao01.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:11:25 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id kwAi1V00C3y5FKc0000000; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:10:44 -0500 Message-ID: <455433BA.2050601@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:09:30 -0500 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: "la" in names References: <20061109041814.GE23121@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <4553388D.6030007@lojban.org> <20061110011026.GD23121@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20061110011026.GD23121@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 13037 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 09:17:49AM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > >>When a computer starts parsing your speech stream and makes >>mistakes because you stuck a la in there, ***then and only then*** >>will we find out whether people can overcome the bad habit of >>slipping up on the la rule. > > If you truly believe that, then you've just admitted that Lojban is > not a language that can be spoken by humans, to humans, or at least > not solely. > > If that's the case, we might as well give up now. No. All I have admitted is that certain kinds of ad hoc word formation in the process of translation are prone to error. Word making in translation is a major part of the language now. In the long run, it will be very minor. Ad-hoc word making is entirely orthogonal to speaking the language correctly. Making Type IV fu'ivla is probably equally prone to serious errors that violate the rules of the language, and which even skilled Lojbanists who would detect "la" in names wouldn't see the violations in fu'ivla. But we managed to come up with Type III fu'ivla so that people wouldn't have to do so, and we discourage Type IV fu'ivla making (without a computer tool to check the resulting wordform). So maybe we'd need a computer tool to check newly Lojbanized cmene, but once the cmene is made, the language can be spoken with no problem. lojbab 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.