Am 14.02.2012 20:23, schrieb Robin Lee Powell:
I think what you described there is a very fluent conversation in which two individuals agree on a name for a new object.On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:17:36PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:I'm not sure the bushmen analogy holds. li'oI think that's really optomistic. Sure, they might call the cars "magic horses", but they wouldn't both instantly think of that, or agree on it. They'd be like "Uhh, that... thingy... what the hell should we call that?" "Ummm, I dunno. Fast box?" "That's kind of lame. How about magic horse?" "Oh, yeah, that'll work." [ignoring that bushmen don't have horses, or anything like them (that is: things humans ride to go faster), to the best of my knowledge] You seem to be assuming that they'd instantly come up with the appropriate new vocab, which I think is deeply unreasonable.
Fluency is real-time creativity and it's being demonstrated here.
And here I disagree. I am asserting that with the current Lojban, you *can* be fluent. Not having lujvo for some things doesn't mean you can't talk about them by describing them in "simpler" terms.And it doesn't matter what the reasons for that are, the fact stays the same.Then it is physically impossible to be fluent in Lojban at this time, because this will happen all the time every day until idiom is built up.
"That is, I believe it's possible to make do with what we have right now, " I agree, and I did.
You did, but it took you time and effort. Fluency means speed and ease. -- 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.