From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBCml6bkBBoErNSk_g@googlegroups.com Thu Sep 09 18:36:55 2010 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OtsXr-0007AR-38; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:55 -0700 Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17sf294333fxm.16 for ; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=UaWG6/82YDV3IJueD/129QHJN/Aeo0Sx/VLYYvYG0ls=; b=nKyyo8km2evG/kdHGHAt/Az4IdXal0voWfR/0x6vByIam27ztY1R3zcZfwmS0qAbBS 7frWF3c6fji/PqQGhc8t6LxOGDculunIaYK4xnH78aOmfc6g+OU2IgOFOIQUq7klXNp3 LVluExluDjhvT6R5a+k66Ghd1DPS8N9p04s8c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=Vq0hgRE1tgjgy5oJIUbrcuzhlGchMAur8AVKQagVHhUbgpCEbbSM2xyVQDUtMARSr1 kCGNc6pSmQ0onjuVcavr3exOGsx5xMU6+GkKm4fB/XXAl4S/l4/KWUo46wANft1Dlmy3 u0nqRkcegJIVPwyAu3xv01XOLmtpzZiqn6wi0= Received: by 10.223.76.208 with SMTP id d16mr325761fak.39.1284082598593; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.152.197 with SMTP id h5ls3057850bkw.3.p; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.85.90 with SMTP id n26mr1699bkl.9.1284082597824; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.85.90 with SMTP id n26mr1698bkl.9.1284082597776; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id p18si1027962bkb.4.2010.09.09.18.36.36; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.54; Received: by bwz20 with SMTP id 20so2422493bwz.41 for ; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.121.84 with SMTP id g20mr70601bkr.37.1284082596500; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.98.71 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 18:36:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100910011141.GS20652@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 21:36:36 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Teaching methods, especially WRT terminators, and validation thereof From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5975206d553048fddc7d4 --001636c5975206d553048fddc7d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Theoretically speaking I tend to agree with lindar. When syllable count is equal, I prefer {ku} to {cu}. For the programmers out there, {cu} feels like a goto statement. i.e. sloppy and shortcut-esque. Pragmatically, I use {cu} all the time (sometimes even when it's completely unnecessary e.g. "mi cu klama"). {cu} is a shortcut and in spoken language people tend to prefer shortcuts. In the end, I agree with lindar. Teach {ku} so that students get it rooted in their minds that lo is an opening bracket and ku is the closing bracket. Afterwards start teaching the shortcut method that results in shorter/easier text but sloppier structure. When I think of cu vs ku the first thing that comes to mind is html vs xhtml. The former is all about getting results, the latter is about clear-cut, rigid, structure. On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Robin Lee Powell < > rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 03:54:58PM -0700, Lindar wrote: >> > While you and others may not agree, I have spent a LOT of time in >> > the past two months teaching students, and I find that they all >> > have a much better grasp of terminators, and thus have fewer >> > problems understanding the grammar in general, when {cu} is not >> > taught. It is, in my opinion, a crutch that people rely upon far >> > too much. One should learn "is not" before "isn't" and "I am" >> > before "I'm" lest people for some reason start confusing >> > your/you're in both meaning and pronunciation. =D >> > >> > Also, CLL is not meant for learning. It's a lovely resource, but >> > many in the modern and active teaching community including myself >> > and kribacr believe that it teaches Lojban incorrectly, and starts >> > habits which result in very bad Lojban (namely in that a >> > frighteningly large number of people believe {cu} is required at >> > all ever). I can't say much for L4B, except that I prefer the more >> > modern Wave Lesson to it as I have seen first hand how it produces >> > better results and speakers with a better understanding of the >> > language. >> >> On the one hand, I've become interested in y'all's way of teaching >> terminators; I can see the advantages. >> >> On the other hand, I'd really like you to stop saying things like >> "it produces better results and speakers with a better understanding >> of the language" until you've shown me where all these people who >> speak it better than me or clsn or Broca or xorxes are. >> >> (Or, at least, myself at my best; I'm out of practice, but I've >> spoken in the language continuously for hours in the past.) >> >> What you've got, as far as I can tell, is an interesting pedagogical >> technique that produces good early results, but is totally untested >> as to its results when students try to reach real expertise. >> >> If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. >> >> -Robin >> > > The last time I was in the IRC room, his first utterance directed at me was > to speak English so he could understand what was being said. His second was > to bring up the {ku} vs. {cu} topic out of nowhere. I think he feels rather > strongly about this issue. > > > -- > mu'o mi'e .aionys. > > .i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --001636c5975206d553048fddc7d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Theoretically speaking I tend to agree with lindar. =A0When syllable count = is equal, I prefer {ku} to {cu}. =A0For the programmers out there, {cu} fee= ls like a goto statement. =A0i.e. sloppy and shortcut-esque.

=
Pragmatically, I use {cu} all the time (sometimes even when it's comple= tely=A0unnecessary=A0e.g. "mi cu klama"). =A0{cu} is a shortcut a= nd in spoken language people tend to prefer shortcuts.

=
In the end, I agree with lindar. =A0Teach {ku} so that students get it root= ed in their minds that lo is an opening bracket and ku is the closing brack= et. =A0Afterwards start teaching the shortcut method that results in shorte= r/easier text but sloppier structure.

When I think of cu vs ku the first thing that comes to = mind is html vs xhtml. =A0The former is all about getting results, the latt= er is about clear-cut, rigid, structure.

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On Thu, Sep 9,= 2010 at 7:11 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org<= /a>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 03:54:58PM -0700, Lindar wrote:
> While you and others may not agree, I have spent a LOT of time in
> the past two months teaching students, and I find that they all
> have a much better grasp of terminators, and thus have fewer
> problems understanding the grammar in general, when {cu} is not
> taught. It is, in my opinion, a crutch that people rely upon far
> too much. One should learn "is not" before "isn't&q= uot; and "I am"
> before "I'm" lest people for some reason start confusing=
> your/you're in both meaning and pronunciation. =3DD
>
> Also, CLL is not meant for learning. It's a lovely resource, but > many in the modern and active teaching community including myself
> and kribacr believe that it teaches Lojban incorrectly, and starts
> habits which result in very bad Lojban (namely in that a
> frighteningly large number of people believe {cu} is required at
> all ever). I can't say much for L4B, except that I prefer the more=
> modern Wave Lesson to it as I have seen first hand how it produces
> better results and speakers with a better understanding of the
> language.

On the one hand, I've become interested in y'all's way of teach= ing
terminators; I can see the advantages.

On the other hand, I'd really like you to stop saying things like
"it produces better results and speakers with a better understanding of the language" until you've shown me where all these people who<= br> speak it better than me or clsn or Broca or xorxes are.

(Or, at least, myself at my best; I'm out of practice, but I've
spoken in the language continuously for hours in the past.)

What you've got, as far as I can tell, is an interesting pedagogical technique that produces good early results, but is totally untested
as to its results when students try to reach real expertise.

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

-Robin


--
mu'o mi'= e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--001636c5975206d553048fddc7d4--