Re: [lojban] Lettorals

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> --

  If by "doesn't come naturally" you mean what I was originally going
to write, namely:
 2a) i seni'ibo la'e lo se go'i ku poi bangu tadji cu jai frili no remna

  Then you have merely shifted the problematic assertion back one
step.  Now 3 does follow from 2a, but 2a doesn't follow from 1.  Just
because something hasn't yet been seen to arise spontaneously, doesn't
mean it's not easy for someone.   No one drove a car before 1850, and
yet 1000s of millions of people do now...

           --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.