From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Nov 07 04:11:54 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:11:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KyQBu-0000X5-9P for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:11:54 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.244]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KyQBr-0000Wj-At for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:11:54 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1097845rvf.46 for ; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:11:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=okJO0VZj2rnt/UThjrORakSMyULCg2imOCZk5RbDEyM=; b=SirChA51Sg/G2Tt6eSYSMnktSGUWYZcQbk65J4LMNRzbKLyU/EoFOutzDh46rhA0vl 5xHfECotGAXsLskpdB7i2NvAzWd/paUl6uKI9kfDGft4WcBXyPP4HTtN0psDUPu+/uAh JlmHf7vqG24v0ekNeiy7OGUqiCnOm4JZvZVD0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=bc/lXec85xMExTWE8UFkAPrPThDiGzjUuFaOjpghG4uDqDpbu8bS2l9AHMTGlFKdCv zKyx1HNF7fbLTrQ8sO8CelUHPEWhUnJxuE4ZsFkRnUBDvz99hySZxm9iIfV/QoHjF+GH NioCDuYJ3+n7CuZv2USNbdQ0rh9r5dX+FG7nQ= Received: by 10.140.136.5 with SMTP id j5mr1733626rvd.39.1226059910406; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:11:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 04:11:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560811070411w592c362we6c3d93eca1d64cd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:11:50 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: experimental cmavo in lojgloss. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30811022128n9e8692evefaa820062d2a652@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30811050534i514b3fddv197b2a07a47655f9@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30811051630t6adad5e0x54456e789d70c5b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560811060547x91443b1p7756e152f8093036@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560811060827m4ef817f7k822d66754725a0f3@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560811061108k6112914ag5fa9e04a89128c28@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14944 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Daniel Brockman wrote: > > But what do you do in a live conversation if you want to correct a mistake? > Do you have to wait for the other person to say something first? In a spoken conversation typos are less likely. :) Also, you are less likely to want to change some particular choice of word, simply because you don't have the text in front of you to check what you just said. Unless one is listening to a recording, a fluent speaker is normally not even aware of making any slips. Someone learning a new language is much more conscious of each individual word, but a fluent speaker is more likely to concentrate on the ideas expressed, not the exact words used. When you really are concentrating on some choice of word, and talking about the word, then it's probably more clear to use the normal grammar to talk about the word, rather than use some shortcut for replacement. That's why I've never been too keen on SA, it seems so wrong to have to concentrate on the exact words you are using instead of on what you are expressing with them. SU is not so bad, only because it is so drastic: "strike all that, let me start again". That's useful when you are carefully trying to phrase something right and you realize that you are making a mess of it. That happens to fluent speakers too when dealing with complex ideas. SI is not so likely to be used by a fluent speaker, it's more of a crutch for the beginner, it's tolerable because the very last word is still fresh in the mind and still accessible as a word. Anyway, I'm not really opposed to people using things like SA or the LOhAI/SAhAI/LEhAI construction if they find it useful. Usage rules. It's just that to me it's too artificial, it approaches language from the wrong end (from the valsi instead of the se valsi). I have a similar gripe about "di'u" and "la'e di'u". Why is the most common and useful "la'e di'u" a compound, and the less useful "di'u" a single word? Normally we are much more likely to want to talk about la'e di'u than about di'u. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.