From lojban+bncCMuAoImuBxDa5KnkBBoELksMNQ@googlegroups.com Fri Sep 10 11:01:16 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ou7uR-0000dN-G4; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:01:16 -0700 Received: by yxs7 with SMTP id 7sf2203050yxs.16 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:01:04 -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=hPXSqSWwMlEjVGPrkwrCIfSunILBoHGBXCguK5LDOTA=; b=23yyixhjsfvvGja+eEiVVtPofpcLRC7b5K+It43BcLZ3qYR9Hd3GYpv3wnzt2/G7f9 c3XC65gdOYujC6Prbbbt1oXVdRBA/gpYuiJ6P2sofqZ5RZuVX6DQCDMmdZREj2eN68fQ SM7WtaXCS3WNpwr0WhyJPbFE/9l6xjT8bn2Vw= 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=UsvPFF/BbA3IgJyCuxBOS8URAMSdhM2jfp4wYVEUWTnVonuckuLtppAs9T+Dndb7MZ Ygqk5c/ovpKysp0AlZzIUeFrMg6I07Uv63jc9ofQ4+nRuyXUEXv+x2O/pmY0iA9X2pKc udIppSC4+3Du2LZoTGaggGqo709E0rYXvv2i4= Received: by 10.90.57.40 with SMTP id f40mr150454aga.4.1284141658239; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.68.29 with SMTP id q29ls2971478yba.4.p; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.51.17 with SMTP id y17mr279856yby.35.1284141657545; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.51.17 with SMTP id y17mr279855yby.35.1284141657517; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m14si2019889ybn.12.2010.09.10.11.00.56; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jtorndorff@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.182; Received: by mail-yx0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 35so1680869yxn.41 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.51.220 with SMTP id e28mr634770qcg.247.1284141656026; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.228.70 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100910011141.GS20652@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:00:55 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Teaching methods, especially WRT terminators, and validation thereof From: Jameson Orndorff To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jtorndorff@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jtorndorff@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jtorndorff@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:03 AM, H. Felton wrote: > If you are saying that > "lo cipni cu klama la bastn. la .atlantas. le dargu le karce" > should be expressed as > "lo cipni ku klama la bastn. ku la .atlantas. ku le dargu ku le karce ku" > ; ie, with *all* those "ku"s, then I disagree quite vehemently I also disagree quite vehemently, as {la .atlantas. ku}* is not grammatical. {ku} only works on {la} if it's taking a selbri, not if it's taking a cmevla. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you, but this is another sort of thing we try to emphasize in our teaching as well. (This may also be more of a point that selbri names aren't well taught in the 'original method' either.) To add another anecdote, as one of the primary proponents of terminator-first teaching, I have to say that the other prime focus of the way we (and I) teach now is the *order* in which things are taught. This, perhaps more than simply the terminators, has been a great boon for us. As for the effectiveness, sure, we don't have much data. All I have to add is that in my personal experience, and I believe xalbo's as well, as people who learned from CLL / L4B / speakers taught from those sources, I feel far more comfortable navigating more complex jufra now that I've embraced terminators for what they are. YMMV as usual. Going to the point of places where you are debating {cu} vs 5 terminators, obviously {cu} is the better choice. You won't always have that luxury, though. What if you are laying out a thoroughly complicated x2 and then realise you want to add an x3 that will require a lot of termination? Obviously if you're typing, which probably consists of the majority of lojban nowadays, a quick transplant to before the selbri and a {cu} and you're safe, but in speech, you don't have that luxury. To me, 'it's hard or infrequently used' isn't a good argument in any case. I often prefer {ku} to {cu} in many situations as well, if anything for consistency. Consider: .i lo nu mi broda ku brode lo du'u do brodi ku le brodo or something like that. -- 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.