Re: [lojban] Re: The New Method

[Jameson Orndorff <jtorndorff@gmail.com>]

> The content looks good, but I'm finding the navigation of the wave to
> be a pain. The behavior of the up and down arrows especially, which
> constantly make me lose the place I'm at. Maybe I'm missing something,
> but I wish the arrows could be used to move one line at a time rather
> than jumping from blip to blip.

I definitely agree here. I have barely participated in the editing of
it myself: I'm just the one generating the teaching / discussion logs
that the community then edits on my behalf. They're like my little
slaves. :) Also a side note - I've heard that Wave works better in
(surprise surprise) Google Chrome, if you can try that.

> Minor issue here: Your use of "selbri" is slightly non-standard. In
> general, you cannot put two selbri together to form a new selbri,
> because the selbri tag is considered a part of the selbri, so for
> example "ca klama" is a selbri, "na djuno" is a selbri. Unfortunately,
> there isn't any standard name for the tag-less part of the selbri. I
> guess it could be called "tag-less selbri", but that only works once
> you have introduced tags.

I completely understand your point and figured someone would notice
this. :) This has been a subject of discussion in IRC - xalbo, myself,
and others have gone back and forth on this. We had come up with the
term {ka'erselbri} or just {ka'e selbri} to differentiate. In
practice, this has pretty much been a non issue - negation and tags
are taught later, and they are described as being on the outside of
the "whole selbri" if you can kinda catch my drift. I wasn't able to
completely describe my style in the original post. I assure you I'm
doing the best to address the issue.

> The problem of teaching this structure before elision is that it is
> then hard to justify. "be" is only needed because we want to elide
> "ku" most of the time. If "ku" were not elidable, there would be no
> point in having the be-bei-be'o structure. I think logically elision
> needs to be taught before "be".

I really haven't had a problem justifying its existence - though I do
admit I have to rely on the tried and true "Just accept that it's
there" argument to get it into people's heads. They're fairly
accepting of it, and to be honest the timing of teaching terminator
elision has been jumping around as I teach each individual student.
Anywhere from soon after {lo ... ku} to right before they go insane -
and usually the results are positive. Terminator elision can likely be
taught alongside {be ... be'o} - I have no problem with this.

I accept your points but do wish to add that we have been pretty
successful even if we are a bit sly about it. :) I feel like I have
had to force the student to make less assumptions using this path and
method.

mi'e .kribacr. mu'o