From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 12 06:07:18 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MbDXy-00084G-KZ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:07:18 -0700 Received: from mail-gx0-f220.google.com ([209.85.217.220]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MbDXu-00083S-Qy for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:07:18 -0700 Received: by gxk20 with SMTP id 20so13847731gxk.10 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:07:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XNpOPn0rNNqNa+cUYP5i+spO+UcYtJMhnI4DvRETXoM=; b=HtWVgFrk12A5yV7vhgGEuo8zbvYnOWy0QjEB4nEjnJTfml9fksgwWdIuKsCfmL8OKk XX1C0x5MhiL5rTzZal05i/J4OjIS/AdbPu5BZ2fGTgUegfec195i/ZgmHxZ/GFryUfIG WMdUxOsFTYaXd4myEQdlxgupBiLU7Nq5ty6jw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=FFfK4Bytdkwb9Ec1q24zDvOdlqgY5bjskpeKwnNxIrIw/fbyM8zeNxjPG5CGbKwvw4 76NLIjT5YQ+Gcde+7rXqbhDFScONW/gRUsgp1H++3Vtjexxh+HPSvS7ZVOE3W9c38Uqq XDu5eT7TKb/nH/2YApkc7oW/G171cGVqQYTog= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.80.15 with SMTP id d15mr187925ybb.28.1250082428234; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:07:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5715b9300908101945jfa1c06v84f68bfccb7c8b1c@mail.gmail.com> References: <5715b9300908101945jfa1c06v84f68bfccb7c8b1c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:07:08 -0400 Message-ID: <96f789a60908120607t2add386dpbf42d38fa8027ad6@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: potentially stupid question From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5ca36132c810470f17f13 X-archive-position: 15956 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mturniansky@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --000e0cd5ca36132c810470f17f13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > I was picturing the following scenario playing out between a lojbanic > parent and his/her child: > > rirni: lo re titla cu banzu > verba: .i go'i fi lonu do tolxendo > rirni .i do binxo lo xlali verba > verba: .i go'i fi lonu do tolxendo > rirni .i o'onai .i lo nu do tavla cu ckape do > verba: .i go'i fi lonu do tolxendo > rirni .i o'onaicai .i .au mi darxi do > > now I would think that a child learning a language as they grow would tend > to see the generalities of a language and apply those generalities to > unknown words and concepts. So wouldn't the child expect that the following > response (un-doubtedly screamed while running for cover): > > verba: .i go'i fi lonu do tolxendo > > would continue to be clever and grammatically correct since "fi" *seems*like it usually means "under conditions"? > > Could the constantly shifting places for concepts like "under conditions" > cause natural learners of lojban to get confused? > I dunno about all that, but I think the kid would more likely say ".imu'ibo do kusru" after each one, which would always work, rather than using the go'i construction, and is more accurate IMO, than "under conditions" --gejyspa --000e0cd5ca36132c810470f17f13 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Luke B= ergen <lukeab= ergen@gmail.com> wrote:
I was picturing the following scenario playing out between a lojbanic paren= t and his/her child:
=C2=A0
rirni:=C2=A0 lo re titla cu banzu
verb= a: .i go'i fi lonu do tolxendo
rirni=C2=A0 .i do binxo lo xlali verb= a
verba: .i go'i fi lonu do tolxendo
rirni .i o'onai .i lo nu do tavla cu ckape do
verba: .i <pause>= ; go'i fi lonu do tolxendo
rirni .i o'onaicai .i .au mi darxi do=

now I would think that a child learning a language as they grow wou= ld tend to see the generalities of a language and apply those generalities = to unknown words and concepts.=C2=A0 So wouldn't the child expect that = the following response (un-doubtedly screamed while running for cover):

verba: .i go'i fi lonu do tolxendo

would continue to be cle= ver and grammatically correct since "fi" seems like it usu= ally means "under conditions"?

Could the constantly shifti= ng places for concepts like "under conditions" cause natural lear= ners of lojban to get confused?

=C2=A0 I dunno about all that, but I think the kid wo= uld more likely say ".imu'ibo do kusru" after each one, which= would always work, rather than using the go'i construction, and is mor= e accurate IMO, than "under conditions"

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 --gejyspa
=C2=A0
=

--000e0cd5ca36132c810470f17f13-- 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.