Re: [lojban] About the word "fluent".

The US Department of Defense use still a different, more specific definition. More complete definitions exist, but they're harder to find.

"LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL DEFINITION

Language Proficiency Level I:

Speaking:

Reading:

Able to satisfy minimum courtesy requirements and maintain very simple face-to-

face conversations on familiar topics.

Sufficient comprehension to read very simple connected written material.

Language Proficiency Level II:

Speaking:

Reading:

Able to satisfy most work requirements with language usage that is acceptable

and effective. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural

accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and

informal conversations on practical, social and professional topics.

Able to read within a normal range of speed and with almost complete comprehension a

variety of material on unfamiliar subjects. Can comprehend a variety of styles and forms

pertinent to professional needs. Rarely misinterprets texts.

Language Proficiency Level III:

Speaking:

Reading:

Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to

professional needs. Language usage and ability to function are fully successful.

Able to read fluently and accurately all styles and forms of the language pertinent to

professional needs."

stevo

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

(This sort of dovetails with the earlier thread about how "lock two
people in a room and present them with two-person puzzles of various
complexity" as a way of producing somewhat "objective" fluency
tests)

OK, so people keep asking me if I'm fluent.

When I ask people what they mean by fluent, they usually say
something that boils down to "you can say whatever you need to say".

So, let me give you an example of why that metric *simply doesn't
work* in the case of Lojban.

The other day RJ was watching basketball, and I was playing with one
of the babies, and she was, surprisingly, avidly watching the TV.
Having nothing better to do, I decided to explain basketball to her,
in minimal detail.

This took me the better part of 10 minutes, and involved a great
deal of stammering and long pauses.

I could re-do it in a couple of minutes of smooth Lojban.

The issue is simple: to the best of my knowledge, *no-one* has
*ever* described or talked about basketball in Lojban before. So I
had to come up with terms for the name of the game itself {ti poi
nanmu cu ci'erkei la julne bolci}, the act of dribbling {bolci minra
gasnu}, the concept of travelling {bajra se cau lo nu [go'i]}, and
making a basket {punji le bolci le julne}.

I think that anyone asking me if I'm fluent that saw that would say
"that was halting and lame; no, you're not", but what if I explained
to them that no-one has ever done that before? That I had to make
everything up as I went along?

The word "fluent" simply doesn't effectively apply in a context
where the language is so under-used that any speaker *regularily*
encounters situations in which no idiom or terminology exists, at
all. It's like putting two bushmen in Time's square, asking them to
describe what they see, and then accusing them of not being fluent
in their native tongue, except with everything.

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u

--
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.