From pycyn@aol.com Tue Nov 05 18:52:14 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Nov 2002 02:52:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 31207 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 02:52:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 02:52:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 02:52:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.187.10a4880c (2612) for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:52:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <187.10a4880c.2af9ddd4@aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:52:04 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: What the heck is this crap? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_187.10a4880c.2af9ddd4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16925 --part1_187.10a4880c.2af9ddd4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/5/2002 6:43:37 PM Central Standard Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > This isn't a nit-pick, this is a fundamental semantic change from the > nature of the language xod and I have been speaking. >> << Because these are fundamental changes to the semantics of the language as used by people who actually converse in it. >> Sort of the opposite of M. Jourdain: you have discovered that you were NOT speaking Lojban all along. It is, alas, a common experience and one there will be more of as more people go off trying to learn Lojban in its fullness. But still, that virtually every sumti contains at least one quantifier and that the order of quantifiers is significant for meaning seems to me too obvious and oft talked about -- both in CLL and on the various lists -- be be something reasonably missed. Where did things go wrong in the teaching process -- and in the learning? What did you think happened with sumti and quantifiers before you were brought to the current realization? Hopefully, this is all corrigible in your usage (I'm afraid that it is too late to do much about the system of Lojban -- though many try and some seem to succeed from time to time). --part1_187.10a4880c.2af9ddd4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/5/2002 6:43:37 PM Central Standard Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:
<<

This isn't a nit-pick, this is a fundamental semantic change from the
nature of the language xod and I have been speaking.

>>
<<
Because these are fundamental changes to the semantics of the language
as used by people who actually converse in it.
>>
Sort of the opposite of M. Jourdain: you have discovered that you were NOT speaking Lojban all along. It is, alas, a common experience and one there will be more of as more people go off trying to learn Lojban in its fullness. But still, that virtually every sumti contains at least one quantifier and that the order of quantifiers is significant for meaning seems to me too obvious and oft talked about -- both in CLL and on the various lists -- be be something reasonably missed. Where did things go wrong in the teaching process -- and in the learning? What did you think happened with sumti and quantifiers before you were brought to the current realization? Hopefully, this is all corrigible in your usage (I'm afraid that it is too late to do much about the system of Lojban -- though many try and some seem to succeed from time to time).
--part1_187.10a4880c.2af9ddd4_boundary--