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

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

This conversation *exactly* demonstrates my point, which was "don't
use the word fluent, as it just leads to confusion".  In that sense,
the rest of the convo is pointless, but feel free to read anyways.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:51:20PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:
> Am 14.02.2012 20:23, schrieb Robin Lee Powell:
> >On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:17:36PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:
> >>I'm not sure the bushmen analogy holds. li'o
> >I 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.
>
> I think what you described there is a very fluent conversation in
> which two individuals agree on a name for a new object. Fluency is
> real-time creativity and it's being demonstrated here.

Yes, and I can absolutely do that.  That conversation described
above would be no problem for me.

> >>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.
> >
> 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.

Which is exactly what I did, so what's your point?

> >"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.

Wait, what?  First of all, you just changed your story; above it was
about making do, and now it's about making do in a certain time
frame that you get to specify, which is obnoxious.

Secondly, how is the example bushman convo I wrote out above not
time and effort?

I didn't have anyone else to talk to (the babies being too young),
so I paused to think about it rather than throwing ideas out for
consideration.  I'm not seeing how this fails to meet your criteria,
if your criteria are coherent, which I'm not sure they are.

-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.