From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDEit_tBBoE6LS7HA@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 27 00:27:18 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QEz9T-0002UP-4M; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:27:18 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf1741813fxm.16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:27:04 -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:date:message-id:subject:from: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=6ebf5FGEF8t+/4yUPC3ngMqc6aw3ySgt0J5zbz4GRf0=; b=DPNwsIMUPR0XuEPdkKgDP9nnsjY4QKniHFftBrIAW3c4UaQQr7wfApN+OtVlZLrwgg qCL3fNoz4OVMg51ZQ+0vEuTz05zcnw1TJiIjU1Pj2GpYibN3ODp1OdMc86Xy+xHSsoP8 le4X8zbXjfva8joVCjsyYt4Mja+wKVnDpLtec= 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=cmz8wJQ80g+R2h2bvIJC4dsLfMx+RuvsVl00jFuUfCZ5C/M+8ouAqemKvC/qV83gKO Jxa3ZxDvoIKTMyVZsW7qvNKNE+IxqUCGHExVn40U/YrjqZQKoR/ve4DyzTtlXfgaDLTt 0lwem42p2Sqh7vHwIrLetfjmSoHDPqegiJhSI= Received: by 10.223.68.194 with SMTP id w2mr253580fai.24.1303889220420; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:27:00 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.35.21 with SMTP id n21ls158035bkd.1.gmail; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.45.205 with SMTP id g13mr145309bkf.15.1303889219098; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.45.205 with SMTP id g13mr145308bkf.15.1303889219059; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f50.google.com (mail-bw0-f50.google.com [209.85.214.50]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id st2si86258bkb.0.2011.04.27.00.26.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.50; Received: by bwz2 with SMTP id 2so1589222bwz.37 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:26:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.126.144 with SMTP id c16mr1618815bks.6.1303889217867; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.191.80 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:26:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <29de23a7-9c3b-439e-8bc7-57748489baa7@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:26:57 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lettorals From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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=0016e6daa892a84ebe04a1e15d61 --0016e6daa892a84ebe04a1e15d61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:35 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. We don't fly because we evolved the ability. We fly because of technological innovation. Evolutionary pressure has never developed the ability to fly in huma > 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. > Bats have the ability to manipulate tools and fly. Who says we need arms /and/ wings? why not winged arms? > > 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. That's not a reason. > 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. > None of that has anything to do with whether or not Lojban's system is messy or confusing. Red Herring fallacies are not logical arguments. > > 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. > -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --0016e6daa892a84ebe04a1e15d61 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Ivo Do= ko <ivo.doko@gma= il.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.

We don't fly b= ecause we evolved the ability. We fly because of technological innovation. = Evolutionary pressure has never developed the ability to fly in huma
=A0
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.

Bats have the ability to manipulate tools and fly. Who says we need = arms /and/ wings? why not winged arms?
=A0
> 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.

That's = not a reason.
=A0
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.
=A0
None of that has anything to do with whether o= r not Lojban's system is messy or confusing. Red Herring fallacies are = not logical arguments.
=A0
> 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.



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

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. = :D )

--
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.
--0016e6daa892a84ebe04a1e15d61--