Re: [lojban] Teaching methods, especially WRT terminators, and validation thereof

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> What you've got, as far as I can tell, is an interesting pedagogical
> technique that produces good early results, but is totally untested
> as to its results when students try to reach real expertise.

And even if the pedagogical technique does prove to be better (which I
am not doubting: In fact that's how I learned terminators too, that's
how terminators were taught in the original "diagrammed summary"
lesson, and that's how they are taught in CLL, despite Lindar's
mistaken beliefs about it. It is only LfB that deviated from that
method, and maybe people who learned exclusively from LfB ended up
confused about terminators, but most people don't limit themselves to
one single learning strategy) so even if that's the best way to teach,
which it probably is, it does not follow that one should for ever
avoid using "cu". It is simply not possible to learn Lojban and not
know how to use "cu" correctly. "cu" (which is not really a
terminator) is demonstrably more efficient than any terminator when
the choice is between "cu" and a terminator. You learn about "ku" in
your first lesson, and about "cu" in your second, or fifth, or
whatever lesson, but you do have to learn about "cu" before you can
read practically any text in Lojban. I don't think people will start
using "ku" instead of "cu" just because they learned "ku" before "cu".
It just doesn't make sense.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.