On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Robin Lee Powell
<
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> I'm still waiting for someone to come out and say "I was taught that
> way, it took about that long, and now I can hold a conversation in
> Lojban".
>
> -Robin
>
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:52:39PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
>> So one argument I keep hearing for {cu} first and {ku} later is
>> that it's much faster to learn "street lojban" and then learn the
>> technicalities of elision and whatnot. But from what lindar was
>> saying, it sounds like "the long/not-street" way of teaching (ku
>> then cu) takes about 30-90 minutes. "It gets newbies speaking in
>> full sentences faster" seems like a moot point when the
>> alternative (and better IMO) way only takes about an hour to
>> learn.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ian Johnson <
blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > My two cents to all of this:
>> > I'm newish but relatively comfortable. I came into the community after
>> > going through LFB (I can't guarantee I was done when I first came, but I was
>> > close). I worked some of the exercises in the chapters (maybe up to chapter
>> > 7 or so) but eventually I found myself trying to hack sentences together in
>> > a nonlinear fashion, and so I used it as a reference basically, until I felt
>> > comfortable enough and had sufficiently technical questions that I thought I
>> > should join the IRC and mailing lists.
>> >
>> > So I learned {cu} first, terminators second. I didn't actually like this in
>> > the end (obviously at the time I didn't know any better). I think putting
>> > off terminators made them seem kinda intimidating. I got them, but they were
>> > one of the things that gave me more hesitation. On the other hand, I think
>> > that filling in every elidable terminator, and even more so using
>> > terminators AND {cu}, in sample sentences directed at beginners, is a
>> > horrible idea, much worse than starting with {cu}*. The sentences get
>> > horribly complicated, and a lot of the elidable terminators are very very
>> > rarely actually useful. I know a circumstance when {vau} is useful having to
>> > do with a certain construction involving GIhA but it's a pretty hard
>> > circumstance to run into, for example. And in this example, to me, that
>> > means that it is silly to teach {vau} to a newbie. If there were even
>> > remotely common circumstances when you needed it, it would be great to teach
>> > it, but with {vau} you have to go to quite a bit of effort to construct a
>> > relevant example, let alone incorporate a relevant example into a discussion
>> > of an actual topic.
>> >
>> > So start with {ku}. When you get to abstractors, teach {kei}. When you get
>> > to {be}, teach {be'o}. When you get to {poi}/{noi}, teach {ku'o}. Around the
>> > time when you start needing two terminators (probably around the time that
>> > you get to abstractors), mention that there's a faster way that is usually
>> > used, and maybe teach it at that time. Or maybe wait until you run into
>> > three terminators (maybe around the time you hit {be} and then attempt to
>> > synthesize knowledge by putting sumti with internal sumti inside
>> > abstractors). But in short, don't teach {cu} first, imo. It can do too many
>> > things to be taught that early on, and so a person that starts with it will
>> > learn the ways that it fails in a much more hackish way, I think; by
>> > contrast, {ku}, {kei}, etc. all do pretty much one thing, and so if they are
>> > the foundation and {cu} is the icing, there won't tend to be confusion so
>> > much as inefficiency. (And people have already shown examples of {cu}
>> > causing inefficiency).
>> >
>> > This all assumes the "learning Lojban to learn it, not to use it ASAP"
>> > hypothesis stated above, of course, which I think is probably pretty good
>> > here. This is also all based on conjecture, not data.
>> >
>> > *I think that sentence is ungrammatical but I don't know how to fix it,
>> > sorry.
>> >
>> > mu'oi mi'e latros.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Minimiscience <
minimiscience@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> de'i li 06 pi'e 07 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Lindar .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
>> >> > ... and then you start seeing confused newbies that don't actually know
>> >> how
>> >> > to terminate that say things like {mi cu dunda zo'e zo'e} (I have
>> >> actually
>> >> > seen stuff like this).
>> >> .skamyxatra
>> >>
>> >> "{mi cu dunda}" is actually perfectly grammatically correct. (It's
>> >> unnecessarily verbose and arguably bad style, but if that's your sole
>> >> objection
>> >> to it, you might want to look in the mirror.) "{cu}" means "the {bridi}'s
>> >> main
>> >> {selbri} starts here," which implies the termination of anything before
>> >> it,
>> >> rather than termination being the primary concept and the main {selbri}
>> >> aspect
>> >> secondary. The only (non-obvious) grammatical restriction on "{cu}" is
>> >> that it
>> >> must be preceded by at least one term in the sentence, where a "term" can
>> >> be a
>> >> {sumti} (including descriptor {sumti} and pro-{sumti}), a termset, a
>> >> {sumti}
>> >> tagged with a {sumti tcita}, a bare BAI KU, a NA KU, or even a FA KU.
>> >>
>> >> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> >> "Lojban Beginners" group.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >>
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<
lojban-beginners%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>> >> .
>> >> For more options, visit this group at
>> >>
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> > "Lojban Beginners" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<
lojban-beginners%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>> > .
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> >
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
>
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
> Lojban (
http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
> is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
> is "na nei". My personal page:
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.