[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Using Lojban in 'very' defined contexts (eg. maths)
e'o Citation for said research for the interested?
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Sebastian Fröjd <so.cool.ogi@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been studying some psychology and there has been some research in
> recent years which supports the saphir-whorf hypothesis. For example the
> fact that chinese children grasp the base-10 position system several years
> earlier than english-speaking children (approx 5 year instead of 8 year).
> The cause for this seems to be the chinese numeral systems which is pretty
> much the same as lojban.
> To say pareci really is easier than to say onehundred and twentythree, and
> if you think otherwise it's probably because you has not get used to it yet.
>
> mu'omi'e jongausib
>
> Den fredagen den 2:e mars 2012 skrev .arpis.<rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com>:
>
>> From my meager experience, the lojban system is nicer than English for
>> thinking of _numbers_, as long as _quantity_ doesn't matter. That's
>> okay, though, because any digit based system is poor at expressing
>> quantity at scale.
>>
>> ba zu ju'o cu'i I would like to practice using lojban numbers for a
>> memory system (inspired by
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic_major_system) and practice
>> using them for arithmetic.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This has sort of come up before. I agree that bare numerals seem harder
>>> to
>>> use than numbers that mark the value at each place. When I was in the
>>> army
>>> (too few years ago) a man once directed us in physical training exercises
>>> saying "one five" for 15. I found it irritating.
>>> What do the accomplished speakers here think?
>>>
>>> stevo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is a good question.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if "pa-ci-re" is an efficient way to say "132". It may be
>>>> good for a computer, which "understands" the things in a syntactic
>>>> way, but I would say that humans prefer the semantic-pragmatic way
>>>> which is found in "one-hundred, three-tens, two-units", (even if tens
>>>> is said "-ty" and units is implicit), because there's the positional
>>>> meaning of 1 that means "one hundred" imported in the language.
>>>>
>>>> People tend to think pragmatically/semantically, not only along
>>>> syntax, as, perhaps, Lojban does a little too much ?
>>>>
>>>> 2012/3/2, M.Nael <muhammad.nael@gmail.com>:
>>>> > Would this work?
>>>> > My native language is Arabic yet I've studied Mathematics since age 3
>>>> > in
>>>> > English... Arabic has the disadvantage of having 'too-many syllables'
>>>> > as
>>>> > opposed to (usually) 1-2 in English.
>>>> > This is most visible in numbers. Arabic 'One' is 'wa?id' | 'Two' is
>>>> > 'i0na:n' | 'Three' is '0la:0ah' and so on.
>>>> > Even with English being more efficient here (and I've grown to use its
>>>> > number-words in mental calculation), I still find myself saying
>>>> > 'three-thousand bla-bla-hundred), ...etc. Lojban number-words should
>>>> > make
>>>> > up for this, thus:
>>>> > My question is: how much would training for 'pa-ci-re' instead of
>>>> > 'one-hundred, thirty-two' etc... be beneficial for my mental
>>>> > calculations?
>>>> > And if I decided to extend this to the whole of my mathematical
>>>> > thinking?
>>>> > Has anyone tried to use *just* the maths (and generally science-part)
>>>> > of
>>>> > Lojban?
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> > Groups
>>>> > "lojban" group.
>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/J2Orr4yu-lUJ.
>>>> > 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.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> --
>> mu'o mi'e .arpis.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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.
--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.
--
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.