From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhDap-DtBBoEPbzIwA@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 27 06:02:33 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QF4Nw-0005dR-NL; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:33 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf472820vws.16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:22 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e9fwSsTmDfB4fGiC7C9HAGQwxaKm/EoDJ8NuZhdG47s=; b=spUBlHPHEPAd66aq2JyVfz68A3dwFGhQHLnVFHMb5sLhNsQtTO7q3lLbsTq5Fuacro KvunY80p3u2I0Ye/bIA7+ukBKJbIgyuB4xkm8bBP8NuowjrUXfuFVUnEHSuQX/T/yGQI qvWuN3vJh0KBote3rNRYP+XtCngEUfe46/aDQ= 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 :content-transfer-encoding; b=q0d0ybKI9Qf3TYn2bJOXNOT0f18EBl0q52sQ4xBevvnpWFSz3O/R0KF+S++KAGV6Bj 6JU6ySKvmEyOqxKS3oadvEjHHS+RB1ZjhVG7EhpW8gJXpRevPW6zFKcSvqLXqV/5bELJ 1rKSULjAlp6uDK3yKRv7qa4XHpLF9KM0YX1MI= Received: by 10.220.175.200 with SMTP id bb8mr159344vcb.5.1303909338928; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.124.37 with SMTP id s37ls66397vcr.1.gmail; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.199.133 with SMTP id es5mr836734vcb.21.1303909338056; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.199.133 with SMTP id es5mr836733vcb.21.1303909338026; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com (mail-qw0-f53.google.com [209.85.216.53]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fo15si171655vbb.4.2011.04.27.06.02.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.53; Received: by qwb7 with SMTP id 7so948185qwb.40 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.27.193 with SMTP id j1mr1706299qcc.82.1303909337679; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.188.133 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:02:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <29de23a7-9c3b-439e-8bc7-57748489baa7@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:02:17 -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 209.85.216.53 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Ivo Doko wrote: > On 27 April 2011 13:41, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Ivo Doko wrote: >>> On 27 April 2011 11:35, Michael Turniansky wrot= e: >>>> 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 =A0would be >>>> confused by it. =A0As you say, the brain is flexible hardware. =A0(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* co= nfusing?! >>> >>> >>> As always, I cause misunderstandings. :( >>> >> =A0Well, talk in lojban then, and there will BE no misunderstandings. >> See how easy that was? =A0;-) ;-) >> >> =A0Okay, to recap: =A0Here 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 >> >> =A0You are asserting, ISTM, =A0three separate claims: >> >> 1) no da =A0poi na'e lojbo bangu zo'u lo lojbo ke cmebasti ciste cu >> panra me da =A0ke 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 >> >> =A0I will concede the first, arguendo, even though I am not sure it is t= rue. >> =A0The second does seem to follow from the first, although again, all >> we can really say is "not yet" or "no living human" >> =A0The third claim is the problematic one. =A0Now, it might be that it's >> because you didn't fill the x2 place. =A0If 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. =A0But 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 >> >> =A0And I categorically say that statement is false. =A0Plenty of things >> that are not natural are not confusing. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--gejyspa >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "lojban" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/loj= ban?hl=3Den. >> >> > > Well, I didn't say "not natural", I said "doesn't come naturally" > (which - of course - being an expression in English can have a > gazillion different meanings all differing by some petty nuance in a > certain detail), but I do agree, that sentence of mine was pretty > terribly worded. > > > -- If by "doesn't come naturally" you mean what I was originally going to write, namely: 2a) i seni'ibo la'e lo se go'i ku poi bangu tadji cu jai frili no remna Then you have merely shifted the problematic assertion back one step. Now 3 does follow from 2a, but 2a doesn't follow from 1. Just because something hasn't yet been seen to arise spontaneously, doesn't mean it's not easy for someone. No one drove a car before 1850, and yet 1000s of millions of people do now... --gejyspa --=20 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.