Re: [lojban] Lettorals

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.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 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!
> 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. :(
>
  Well, talk in lojban then, and there will BE no misunderstandings.
See how easy that was?  ;-) ;-)

  Okay, to recap:  Here was your sentence:
>... 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

  You are asserting, ISTM,  three separate claims:

1) no da  poi na'e lojbo bangu zo'u lo lojbo ke cmebasti ciste cu
panra me da  ke cmebasti ciste
2) .i seni'ibo la'e lo se go'i ku poi bangu tadji cu jai jinzi no remna
3) .i seni'ibo lo se go'i cu cfipu

  I will concede the first, arguendo, even though I am not sure it is true.
  The second does seem to follow from the first, although again, all
we can really say is "not yet" or "no living human"
  The third claim is the problematic one.  Now, it might be that it's
because you didn't fill the x2 place.  If you had said "la'o .ry Ivo
Doko .ry ", "so'o prenu" (or perhaps even "so'i prenu"), you might
have gotten no argument from me.  But by saying BECAUSE it is not
natural, THEREFORE it is confusing, and not qualifying who it is
confusing to, it seems to me that you are implicitly claiming:

ro da ro de zo'u lo du'u da na jinzi de cu nibli lo du'u da cfipu de

  And I categorically say that statement is false.  Plenty of things
that are not natural are not confusing.

              --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.