Re: [lojban] Lettorals

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

>> 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).
>

  (Gee, I opened up a messy can of worms here by simply addressing
what lojban /does/....)
I'm sorry, Ivan, but all you've shown me is that someone who is reared
on the currently existing natlangs (and I'll take your word for it
that you've studied up enough on the several thousand living and dead
languages out there to know that there isn't a single case out there
of a similar mechanism ;-) ) MIGHT be confused by the system (I never
have been, so, you know, counterexample (indeed, it's so engrained
that I often argue with xorxes when I trip across a letteral that
shouldn't mechanistically logically refer to what it he would argue it
must refer to from a real-world contextual POV)).  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)

  Point the second:  You made reference to intonation and such being a
prnoun disambiguator in English/other natlangs.  Well, more than 50%
of English that I take in is written, not spoken, so you lose that
capability.  And more than 99% of my lojban communication is that way.

   Point the third (to Jonathan): "More likely is 'Bob hit Billy. Bob
is 8'."  REALLY?  I'm sorry, you must mostly communicate with people
who write Dick and Jane primers.  I never talk like that.  My English
speaking and writing is chockful of  interwoven clauses and phrases.
Heck, just look at the current document if you have any doubt.  That's
why my lojban writing is as well, and that's why I pine for abilities
that lojban doesn't have that I think it should, which I can do in
English, like being able to refer to something that's a) imbedded way
inside some sub-bridi (without the clunky goi/cei mechanism, which
requires forethought) or b) qualifying bridi in the same way I can my
sumti.

            --gejyspa

-- 
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.