Re: [lojban] Lettorals

[Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com>]

On 27 April 2011 13:41, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Well, I didn't say "not natural", I said "doesn't come naturally"
(which - of course - being an expression in English can have a
gazillion different meanings all differing by some petty nuance in a
certain detail), but I do agree, that sentence of mine was pretty
terribly worded.


-- 
mu'o mi'e .ivan.

-- 
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.