From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Mon Sep 23 16:10:03 1991
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Date: Mon Sep 23 16:10:03 1991
Message-Id: <9109231833.AA06165@relay1.UU.NET>
Reply-To: "61510::GILSON" <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!gilson!61510.decnet>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "61510::GILSON" <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!gilson!61510.decnet>
Subject:      Recognizability, contd.
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>, List Reader <ghsvax!hal>
Status: RO

Jim Carter (jimc@math.ucla.edu) states:

>I am rather cynical about how useful the cognate relation may be in
>helping users to learn the words or to recognize those they have not
>seen before.  In fact, the easiest Old Loglan word for me to remember
>was "mroza" (hammer), which was pointed out by JCB as having zero
>cognate score in English -- simply because it was unusual in that way.

>I'm not saying that the cognate relation has zero effect; I'm saying
>that for one person, me, it has maybe a 10% effect on effort needed to
>learn the words (if that), and the agony necessary to create a gismu is
>not worth the benefit to the users.  (Agony: from personal experience.)

I can't argue against his point -- _for him_. However I find that one major
deterrent to my learning any significant number of Lojban gismu is that they
have no obvious cognates and so it would be like learning Japanese. If the
words were more easily related to something I knew, it would help.

                                                    Bruce