From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhCOnuDtBBoEreUqdQ@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 27 05:42:06 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QF449-0006Bd-5g; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:42:06 -0700 Received: by vxk20 with SMTP id 20sf470500vxk.16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:54 -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=W9T/V9o4f2Va3M2p4iPKBMmNyny7G9RK2GofBhgjszk=; b=noLyFP4Xm3aJyGEV2vgj+Mjkr7Iv169wb5qOUqbXDdYf95dV18fPbtVyq45FUOClIy TjQ8VrDjCxbNhG7ptUXxJzcK/qn9oza2XHZ/JSL53Lk5d0E6rkQRDLYcCoiAz7yYCwWB R+KpsMW815FSYG2nw5LZLwzMsgYlelgnBwrSA= 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=PVm+ua5NPNGNXUWso+9xpbOjp1OtaPLkEW1upwZbnZkpqJ0SVhCmyJ6Pz6PW0dpbJB 6FGpmocU8PcLikKrLPmFXLfoya9xYkbst7F8OhqR9ryRAHLptBNrOhb+DULA5xiFrO/z NQVKasA9QAv3IAYw/+6ywIqsSfmCuyfq9pTm4= Received: by 10.220.5.139 with SMTP id 11mr154912vcv.21.1303908110873; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.91.165 with SMTP id cf5ls240997vdb.1.gmail; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.112.106 with SMTP id ip10mr800011vdb.6.1303908110164; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.112.106 with SMTP id ip10mr800010vdb.6.1303908110153; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f43.google.com (mail-qw0-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x8si50789vdt.7.2011.04.27.05.41.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.43; Received: by qwf6 with SMTP id 6so933760qwf.30 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.102.165 with SMTP id g37mr1685760qco.120.1303908109723; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.188.133 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:41:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <29de23a7-9c3b-439e-8bc7-57748489baa7@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:41:49 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lettorals From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Ivo Doko wrote: > On 27 April 2011 11:35, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> I'm sorry, Ivan, but all you've shown me is that someone who is reared >> on the currently existing natlangs MIGHT be confused by the system. > > Wait a second here, I don't understand... That's precisely the thing I > was claiming all along! > This: > >> But you haven't >> proven your case that someone who is reared on only lojban would be >> confused by it. As you say, the brain is flexible hardware. (i.e. >> you can make a valid claim that it is not _natural_, but not that it >> is inherently confusing) > > I did not intend to say nor imply. How can something be *inherently* confusing?! > > > As always, I cause misunderstandings. :( > Well, talk in lojban then, and there will BE no misunderstandings. See how easy that was? ;-) ;-) Okay, to recap: Here was your sentence: >... lojban's way of dealing with pronouns does not in any similar > form occur in any natural language, thus it is not a linguistic > mechanism which comes naturally to humans, thus it is confusing You are asserting, ISTM, three separate claims: 1) no da poi na'e lojbo bangu zo'u lo lojbo ke cmebasti ciste cu panra me da ke cmebasti ciste 2) .i seni'ibo la'e lo se go'i ku poi bangu tadji cu jai jinzi no remna 3) .i seni'ibo lo se go'i cu cfipu I will concede the first, arguendo, even though I am not sure it is true. The second does seem to follow from the first, although again, all we can really say is "not yet" or "no living human" The third claim is the problematic one. Now, it might be that it's because you didn't fill the x2 place. If you had said "la'o .ry Ivo Doko .ry ", "so'o prenu" (or perhaps even "so'i prenu"), you might have gotten no argument from me. But by saying BECAUSE it is not natural, THEREFORE it is confusing, and not qualifying who it is confusing to, it seems to me that you are implicitly claiming: ro da ro de zo'u lo du'u da na jinzi de cu nibli lo du'u da cfipu de And I categorically say that statement is false. Plenty of things that are not natural are not confusing. --gejyspa -- 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.