From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 12 06:20:44 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MbDkx-00016k-J7 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:20:44 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MbDku-00015w-AR for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:20:43 -0700 Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so3906792vws.25 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:20:34 -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=IeMYoHVdRPbGXg4sHyGIaAT7WsGdsT/kiAH3QIXRAWg=; b=KWtoFDTiqlSPHwzR8PyYlxhZEyVccfilTgTC7JnB/FOxXyMa7HqSK6n8NMQ8imSS1c MifNUjFdnfhg9Xl7H+mf+meEc7bwYEvDOwGKkW8XydiJjoys3bLJhe+lJx0rRL6JEp8H 7KMRioYiCkr435G2Y1PXkXbX8dE3HLo5tOXqk= 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=TEOoQeFeID6k72V4xxgjxW00tUkLD2HYTbCI+0hvjMLKWSDivpTzJr7FxVM2UlLj68 VB24xmTXWCeg8pW507SF7j2vRABxxHBUuvov6vhd9119LZ4+nIwjhPOUXRsK9k9wbLy9 /SlDJjIgUQnmF2TGaDR6bFrP+VqfL+bnXfr/M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.120.84 with SMTP id c20mr137051vcr.25.1250083233926; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:20:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <96f789a60908120607t2add386dpbf42d38fa8027ad6@mail.gmail.com> References: <5715b9300908101945jfa1c06v84f68bfccb7c8b1c@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60908120607t2add386dpbf42d38fa8027ad6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:20:33 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300908120620y40a3dfcdm3245444fe85bd76d@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: potentially stupid question From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6b088190dba0470f1af08 X-archive-position: 15957 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --000e0cd6b088190dba0470f1af08 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit yeah, I was just trying to think of an example where many different gismu have the same position for the same concept and came up with "under conditions". - Luke Bergen On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > > 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 > > > --000e0cd6b088190dba0470f1af08 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable yeah, I was just trying to think of an example where many different gismu h= ave the same position for the same concept and came up with "under con= ditions".

- Luke Bergen


On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Michael= Turniansky <= mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:


On Mon= , Aug 10, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>= wrote:
I was picturing the following scenario playing out between a lojbanic paren= t and his/her child:
=A0
rirni:=A0 lo re titla cu banzu
verba: .i = go'i fi lonu do tolxendo
rirni=A0 .i do binxo lo xlali verba
verb= a: .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.=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?

=A0 I dunno about all that, but I think t= he kid would more likely say ".imu'ibo do kusru" after each o= ne, which would always work, rather than using the go'i construction, a= nd is more accurate IMO, than "under conditions"

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


--000e0cd6b088190dba0470f1af08-- 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.