From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCn-eHtBBoEstVNow@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 27 13:29:47 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QFBMf-0001Hh-LM; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:46 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf2396574fxm.16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:31 -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=SzAkllQ96MH+o2yDtBnLh2mreVHMCmy5WGx2YP6y8BA=; b=KFfRsvlXiha0CW/2O7jNT/e7r3AeBGmoOL15GhzapPzow+rZJDgNKzQHrsczpjGCPa 2ATM2NiYObRVtNMlnT/Y95RSGSN4ovA/ONsjEB1C6fQXMibEadz6XdaZH12Xr5CspLgO A3LBnsSYXrtgItBg+FOLHO4FVBkm446pC4jJU= 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=tG6pwN0FFcBnCcV2vsI0CMdx56AvnENSEABgAwhAzOKM7akpA5s9QHwz1FDnoUpxIE kwvpYg1ZUnHB+g0FsG3eWvOhKzgKbwGQzYDBfDgJjKsZLI0S0lmv1cyZ+OeOyR0t4u5u 19hszGmw3yTRAvhOb5YG2JdqszPM3iNNRMVeM= Received: by 10.223.121.83 with SMTP id g19mr586874far.48.1303936167518; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:27 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.78.196 with SMTP id m4ls282064fak.0.gmail; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.58.18 with SMTP id e18mr225376fah.2.1303936166423; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.58.18 with SMTP id e18mr225375fah.2.1303936166391; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f52.google.com (mail-bw0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q4si117986fan.1.2011.04.27.13.29.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.52; Received: by mail-bw0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 24so1734424bwj.25 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.20.66 with SMTP id e2mr2466020bkb.141.1303936166158; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.191.80 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <29de23a7-9c3b-439e-8bc7-57748489baa7@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:29:26 -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 209.85.214.52 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=00032555450efe634704a1ec4baf --00032555450efe634704a1ec4baf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:43 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! > No it's not. "it is not a linguistic mechanism which comes naturally to humans, thus it is confusing". That is what you were claiming. You did not say "may be" confusing you said /is/ confusing. There is a large difference between the statements "A is B" and "A may be B", namely that the first is claiming that the possibility of A being B is 100%, whereas the second claims that the possibility of A being B is >0%. > 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. :( > If you don't want to be misunderstood, make sure you are saying what you mean. -- > 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. --00032555450efe634704a1ec4baf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Ivo Dok= o <ivo.doko@gmai= l.com> wrote:
On 27 April 2011 11:35, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, Ivan, but all you've shown me is that someone who i= s reared
> on the currently existing natlangs MIGHT be confused by the syst= em.

Wait a second here, I don't understand... That's precisely the thin= g I
was claiming all along!

No it's not. "it = is not a linguistic mechanism which comes naturally to humans, thus it is c= onfusing".

That is what you were claiming. You did not say &quo= t;may be" confusing you said /is/ confusing. There is a large differen= ce between the statements "A is B" and "A may be B", na= mely that the first is claiming that the possibility of A being B is 100%, = whereas the second claims that the possibility of A being B is >0%.
=A0
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* = confusing?!


As always, I cause misunderstandings. :(

If you do= n't want to be misunderstood, make sure you are saying what you mean. <= br>
--
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--00032555450efe634704a1ec4baf--