From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBC0_d7tBBoEbG_Umw@googlegroups.com Tue Apr 26 23:59:15 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QEyiM-0003pa-TX; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:59:15 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf1988361wya.16 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:59:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=nyOdTaLQ4w3awQMJ02JJIUY9Rhssl7dK71YHiopq7ag=; b=ksXGOcYonoasof/urgc9q9UhbH0ksEIbuvcXz+iY35PLpGy5S6hVflKGHHEDtcGPA0 ECnxmyrWM+i21mxWGKESo2kLMLdUhv75/JiE2KiozgMiCZBfGQRkcHNwPl6flmby7U0Y e+20sfNwdcfeRHssC8kSKFH+uy2JqDs0Fe2ho= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=QiLgeXa50+3AUj+XbU/9Sq4vMbhocSVunGdsVp28SC6fuLBePboNWSxBKVKnpKGdwx L+Qqefiw+ww3Qk/1SY8Zh8UcbS9B06KrMP58iBneCI4v+xh7QO5Cm1n0WFEtb5Rnque6 Q7uNqDcsX+6Erz7udE8YkTWWXuYpitoDjAkqE= Received: by 10.216.141.79 with SMTP id f57mr1688775wej.21.1303887540395; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:59:00 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.25.139 with SMTP id z11ls47829eez.0.gmail; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.119.13 with SMTP id m13mr140050eeh.54.1303887539374; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.119.13 with SMTP id m13mr140049eeh.54.1303887539339; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com (mail-ey0-f169.google.com [209.85.215.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l51si172012eei.4.2011.04.26.23.58.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.169; Received: by eyd9 with SMTP id 9so489719eyd.0 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.121.15 with SMTP id q15mr757121eeh.230.1303887539085; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.29.4 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:58:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <29de23a7-9c3b-439e-8bc7-57748489baa7@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> From: Luke Bergen Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:58:39 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lettorals 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 209.85.215.169 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e6ffaf3981f8204a1e0f9c7 --e0cb4e6ffaf3981f8204a1e0f9c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Ok, this is going to be my last response on this thread because my frustration level is making coherent thought difficult and I don't want to end up making a stupid argument or regretting something that I say later on. Your understanding of evolutionary theory is clearly off. You're claiming that evolutionary processes yield an ideal design consistently?! Have you looked at the inefficiencies of the human body? As I said before, evolution in biology and in every other field is LAZY. Does this thing survive long enough to re-produce? Yes? Great, it's good enough. Does this eyeball do it's job well enough to make the animal survive? Yes? Great, good enough. Just because something is good enough that does not make it *ideal* or even "good" for that matter. No, lojban is not ambiguous, it is vague. Vagueness is an absence of meaning, ambiguity is too much meaning. Others can speak to this more proficiently than myself. "No natural language features even remotely similar mechanism for handling pronouns, which can only mean that our "hardware" is not a priori "wired" in a way in which such handling of pronouns comes naturally to it." This argument completely does not hold water. Nor do you give any basis for your claim. Please tell me more about how the brain does language processing. Specifically can you go into the neural pathways used when processing pronouns? Shoes did not arise naturally, we designed them. Are you telling me that the human foot just doesn't work with shoes because shoes are a human designed construct? And if you don't like the construct, then don't use it. Just use {ra} everywhere you go and it'll be just like english. Nice and ambiguous. (I guess I've just proven myself wrong in that regard, {ra} can be thought of as ambiguous which is probably why it doesn't see much use). Sorry for being so confrontational on this point. I remember reading through the CLL and finding all kinds of "problems" with lojban only to have xorxes or gejyspa put me in my proper place. I shouldn't be so impatient. .u'u On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Ivo Doko wrote: > On 27 April 2011 07:09, Luke Bergen wrote: > > Haha. If it's better then evolutionary pressure would make it happen. > > That's why walking is better than flying in a jet in every way. > > You've just proven my point with the sarcasm there. We do fly in jets > when it is better than walking, don't we? Case in point that > evolutionary pressure does its job. And yes, for beings such as we, > walking is generally better than flying because handling tools is more > important than being able to fly and evolving wings alongside arms > would require too big a jump from local fitness maximum. > > > > And yes, English allows you to be unambiguous and clear but the fact that > it > > also allows the lazy speaker to be ambiguous and confusing is a flaw in > the > > language. > > I thought lojban also allowed the speaker to be as much ambiguous or > unambiguous as (s)he wanted. Or did something change while I wasn't > looking? > > > > I'm confused how you can go through that explanation of what it was that > > mabel sold and say "see, nice and easy" but then gejyspa's explanation of > > "it's a pronoun for whatever last started with that letter" is "messy and > > confusing". > > Because it *is* messy and confusing. No natural language features even > remotely similar mechanism for handling pronouns, which can only mean > that our "hardware" is not a priori "wired" in a way in which such > handling of pronouns comes naturally to it. (Which doesn't mean that > I'm saying that it can't be learned - it is an extremely flexible > piece of hardware we are talking about here.) As opposed to that, > inductive reasoning (which I demonstrated in understanding the example > with Mabel) *does* come naturally to the hardware, which is why no > natural language features specific mechanisms for minimising the > requirement of inductive reasoning in understanding of the language. > > > > Just because it's not your first language doesn't make > > it inherently messy and complicated. > > Which is not what I said. English is not my first language either > (although frankly, my first language is an Indo-European language so > it's not like learning English was too much trouble). > > > -- > mu'o mi'e .ivan. > > -- > 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. --e0cb4e6ffaf3981f8204a1e0f9c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, this is going to be my last response on this thread because my frustrat= ion level is making coherent thought difficult and I don't want to end = up making a stupid argument or regretting something that I say later on.
Your understanding of evolutionary theory is clearly off. = =A0You're claiming that evolutionary processes yield an ideal design co= nsistently?! =A0Have you looked at the inefficiencies of the human body? = =A0As I said before, evolution in biology and in every other field is LAZY.= =A0Does this thing survive long enough to re-produce? =A0Yes? =A0Great, it= 's good enough. =A0Does this eyeball do it's job well enough to mak= e the animal survive? =A0Yes? =A0Great, good enough. =A0Just because someth= ing is good enough that does not make it ideal=A0or even "good&= quot; for that matter.

No, lojban is not ambiguous, it is vague. =A0Vagueness = is an absence of meaning, ambiguity is too much meaning. =A0Others can spea= k to this more proficiently than myself.

"No natural language features even=
remotely similar mechanism for handling pronouns, which can only mean
th= at our "hardware" is not a priori "wired" in a way in w= hich such
handling of pronouns comes naturally to it."

This argument completely does not hold water. =A0Nor do you = give any basis for your claim. =A0Please tell me more about how the brain d= oes language processing. =A0Specifically can you go into the neural pathway= s used when processing pronouns? =A0Shoes did not arise naturally, we desig= ned them. =A0Are you telling me that the human foot just doesn't work w= ith shoes because shoes are a human designed construct?

And if you don't like the construct, then don't= use it. =A0Just use {ra} everywhere you go and it'll be just like engl= ish. =A0Nice and ambiguous. =A0(I guess I've just proven myself wrong i= n that regard, {ra} can be thought of as ambiguous which is probably why it= doesn't see much use).

</rant>

Sorry for being = so confrontational on this point. =A0I remember reading through the CLL and= finding all kinds of "problems" with lojban only to have xorxes = or gejyspa put me in my proper place. =A0I shouldn't be so impatient. = =A0.u'u

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:35= AM, Ivo Doko <i= vo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 April 2011 07:09, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Haha. =A0If it's better then evolutionary pressure would make it h= appen.
> =A0That's why walking is better than flying in a jet in every way.=

You've just proven my point with the sarcasm there. We do fly in = jets
when it is better than walking, don't we? Case in point that
evolutionary pressure does its job. And yes, for beings such as we,
walking is generally better than flying because handling tools is more
important than being able to fly and evolving wings alongside arms
would require too big a jump from local fitness maximum.


> And yes, English allows=A0you to be unambiguous and clear but the fact= that it
> also allows the lazy speaker to be ambiguous and confusing is a flaw i= n the
> language.

I thought lojban also allowed the speaker to be as much ambiguous or<= br> unambiguous as (s)he wanted. Or did something change while I wasn't
looking?


> I'm confused how you can go through that explanation of what it wa= s that
> mabel sold and say "see, nice and easy" but then gejyspa'= ;s explanation of
> "it's a pronoun for whatever last started with that letter&qu= ot; is "messy and
> confusing".

Because it *is* messy and confusing. No natural language features eve= n
remotely similar mechanism for handling pronouns, which can only mean
that our "hardware" is not a priori "wired" in a way in= which such
handling of pronouns comes naturally to it. (Which doesn't mean that I'm saying that it can't be learned - it is an extremely flexible piece of hardware we are talking about here.) As opposed to that,
inductive reasoning (which I demonstrated in understanding the example
with Mabel) *does* come naturally to the hardware, which is why no
natural language features specific mechanisms for minimising the
requirement of inductive reasoning in understanding of the language.


> Just because it's not your first language doesn't make
> it=A0inherently=A0messy and complicated.

Which is not what I said. English is not my first language either
(although frankly, my first language is an Indo-European language so
it's not like learning English was too much trouble).


--
mu'o mi'e .ivan.

--
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@googlegroups.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.
--e0cb4e6ffaf3981f8204a1e0f9c7--