From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Nov 10 21:36:22 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:36:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GilX8-0003P3-RF for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:36:03 -0800 Received: from centrmmtao05.cox.net ([70.168.83.79]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GilX1-0003On-Sd for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:36:02 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by centrmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061111053558.FCB7904.centrmmtao05.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:35:58 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id lHbE1V00N3y5FKc0000000; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:35:16 -0500 Message-ID: <45556167.10201@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:36:39 -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> <455433BA.2050601@lojban.org> <4554AF04.60500@kli.org> In-Reply-To: <4554AF04.60500@kli.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 13058 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 Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > Bob LeChevalier wrote: > >> Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >> 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. > > Experience would seem to indicate that this is not so. People use a LOT > of ad-hoc names in ad-hoc conversations on IRC and in emails here. And 99% of us are still thinking in English or our native language, and translating when we do so. And because of where we are coming from, we tend to want to Lojbanize everything. Mature languages (with skilled speakers) do not need extensive ad-hockery. Borrowings are highly marked when first used, and only get absorbed into the lexicon slowly over time. Lojban has rules for allowing this process in a manner that does not violate the language principles, but when people push the process along, the deliberation that would hammer out rough edges (and rule violations) doesn't take place. So people make mistakes. Since conversational usage often includes mistakes, I don't place a lot of import on whether some feature causes mistakes, especially when the alternative approach of mandatory pauses is likely to be equally violated by Lojban speakers. I also don't put much import on the failure of proofreaders to catch the errors. I know how many errors made it into CLL despite a MUCH more careful and extensive review, over a much longer period. We haven't had skilled Lojban-speaking editors proofing our works, and everyday speakers, no matter how skilled, often miss errors when those errors do not impede their understanding. 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.