From lojban+bncCJbznvHdFRDt6OHtBBoEYa1hYQ@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 27 12:55:13 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QFApC-0001Lq-Qk; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:55:13 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf2376783fxm.16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:56 -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=z3eTEXMQLByQbtTvYllsskFhbWTIiJu/P447VkdFddU=; b=4+sJgFmoB1YeaTvm/GLWqU+TPXw9SS/4c0ovHrbX/Dp1DPwD9kvYw+Usvm83kWwYnk /jjVfClxzKrIKZ9gU/OBXsmqneCLjdnhCqBFLatTB9qQJMcAygg+vGes8kyZCy3N4hZm hFFCflZGYy/zss5AnVbizqiwkGiUc6scSkeZQ= 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=4ETBaDGvVgworGoAX/VA5kdujU29L3oH0pr/VBh1X6zjVVnWVBRCze24IUk/OPTEwR xAbZ/lOMN4+JOqBIg7DfRFnuhxeBIUJHqolcCSXnwSo9rZ+i3eioDJF2VSl/2vvobcAj UN4Rgf/F7Nc3qX2hVrUEbRfpr4w86Bt34dAV0= Received: by 10.223.27.153 with SMTP id i25mr398585fac.8.1303934061115; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.49.212 with SMTP id w20ls372630bkf.2.gmail; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.117.138 with SMTP id r10mr238534bkq.5.1303934059577; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.117.138 with SMTP id r10mr238533bkq.5.1303934059539; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f45.google.com (mail-fx0-f45.google.com [209.85.161.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o19si191773bkw.3.2011.04.27.12.54.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.45; Received: by mail-fx0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 2so1808487fxm.32 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.55.201 with SMTP id v9mr128987fag.76.1303934059217; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.93.201 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:53:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <29de23a7-9c3b-439e-8bc7-57748489baa7@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> From: MorphemeAddict Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:53:59 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lettorals To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lytlesw@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lytlesw@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=001517478f926905ec04a1ebce67 --001517478f926905ec04a1ebce67 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Ivo Doko wrote: > On 27 April 2011 08:26, Jonathan Jones wrote: > > We don't fly because we evolved the ability. We fly because of > technological > > innovation. > > And the ability to achieve technological innovation has happened > because of natural evolution. > > > > Bats have the ability to manipulate tools... > > There have been no reported sightings of bats manipulating tools. > > > > That's not a reason. > > The sentence by itself is circular and not an explanation of the > reason, but the sentence is not by itself (it is followed by an > explanation) so there's no point in singling it out and pointing out > that it is not a reason. Of course it's not. Now that I've singled out > your sentence as well I can say that it is a pointless tautology, > because the word "that" is clearly not a reason. Those sorts of > arguments don't give much fruit, though. > > > >> No natural language > There are a lot of languages, and some of them are pretty weird. Have you checked them all? stevo > 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. > > I don't see how what I had said was a red herring argument. My point > was that 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 (not > messy, I agree - that was a hyperbole). > > > -- > 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. --001517478f926905ec04a1ebce67 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 April 2011 08:26, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> We don'= t fly because we evolved the ability. We fly because of technological
&g= t; innovation.

And the ability to achieve technological innovation has happened<= br>because of natural evolution.


> Bats have the ability to m= anipulate tools...

There have been no reported sightings of bats man= ipulating tools.


> That's not a reason.

The se= ntence by itself is circular and not an explanation of the
reason, but t= he sentence is not by itself (it is followed by an
explanation) so there= 's no point in singling it out and pointing out
that it is not a reason. Of course it's not. Now that I've singled = out
your sentence as well I can say that it is a pointless tautology,because the word "that" is clearly not a reason. Those sorts of<= br> arguments don't give much fruit, though.


>> No natural language
=A0
There are a lot of languages, and some of them are pretty weird. Have = you checked them all?
=A0
stevo
=A0
features even
>> remotely similar mechanism for = handling pronouns, which can only mean
>> that our "hardware&= quot; 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 f= lexible
>> piece of hardware we are talking about here.) As oppose= d to that,
>> inductive reasoning (which I demonstrated in underst= anding the example
>> with Mabel) *does* come naturally to the hardware, which is why no=
>> natural language features specific mechanisms for minimising t= he
>> requirement of inductive reasoning in understanding of the l= anguage.
>
>
> None of that has anything to do with whether or not Lo= jban's system is messy
> or confusing. Red Herring fallacies are = not logical arguments.

I don't see how what I had said was= a red herring argument. My point
was that lojban's way of dealing with pronouns does not in any similar<= br>form occur in any natural language, thus it is not a linguistic
mecha= nism which comes naturally to humans, thus it is confusing (not
messy, I= agree - that was a hyperbole).


--
mu'o mi'e .ivan.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t= he Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send e= mail to lojban@googlegroups.com<= /a>.
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?h= l=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.
--001517478f926905ec04a1ebce67--