From pycyn@aol.com Thu Mar 01 18:53:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 2 Mar 2001 02:53:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 90729 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2001 02:53:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Mar 2001 02:53:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Mar 2001 02:53:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.78.1135cd7e (17229) for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:53:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <78.1135cd7e.27d06517@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:53:11 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Meaningless talk To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_78.1135cd7e.27d06517_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_78.1135cd7e.27d06517_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/1/2001 6:11:46 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >.i su'a nandu fa le za'i traji ke smuni kakne sepi'o la lojban > > i ie li'a i ma'a za'o na certu le bangu > Not that I can take my own advice, but, after slogging through this thread today, even with considerable mechanical help (the MSDOS jbofihe just can't take it but the accompanying glosser is very handy), I would recommend that we all (or most of us anyhow) go back to "See Spot run" and work our way up very slowly before we get around to doing to philosophical or linguistic discussions in Lojban. There was scarcely a line in all this free from grammatical or intentional or vocabulary errors, which makes it very hard to read -- especially if you miss one of the intentional errors and so get off on the wrong notion of what was meant or guess the wrong correction for a word. Lojban has almost zip redundancy, so each little error adds incrementally to a total mess. >From my point of view -- but that is about my vocabulary and my own writing style -- a good move would be to drop all the attitudinals and discursives for a while. They do clutter the message and they seem to get misused more often that content words (and are also the tightest piece of the vocabulary, small error make huge differences). They are semantic ciphers, so nothing will be lost (and some folk may be forced to actually use the brivla that they mean when they use them). Oh, throw in the non-spatiotemporal tenses and most of the connectives while you're about it. And put in subjects, the absence of which can create a monstrous boggle a few lines later. --part1_78.1135cd7e.27d06517_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/1/2001 6:11:46 PM Central Standard Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>.i su'a nandu fa le za'i traji ke smuni kakne sepi'o la lojban

i ie li'a i ma'a za'o na certu le bangu

Not that I can take my own advice, but, after slogging through this thread
today, even with considerable mechanical help (the MSDOS jbofihe just can't
take it but the accompanying glosser is very handy), I would recommend that
we all (or most of us anyhow) go back to "See Spot run" and work our way up
very slowly before
we get around to doing to philosophical or linguistic discussions in Lojban.  
There was scarcely a line in all this free from grammatical or intentional or
vocabulary errors, which makes it very hard to read -- especially if you miss
one of the intentional errors and so get off on the wrong notion of what was
meant or guess the wrong correction for a word.  Lojban has almost zip
redundancy, so each little error adds incrementally to a total mess.  
From my point of view -- but that is about my vocabulary and my own writing
style -- a good move would be to drop all the attitudinals and discursives
for a while.  They do clutter the message and they seem to get misused more
often that content words (and are also the tightest piece of the vocabulary,
small error make huge differences).  They are semantic ciphers, so nothing
will be lost (and some folk may be forced to actually use the brivla that
they mean when they use them).  Oh, throw in the non-spatiotemporal tenses
and most of the connectives while you're about it.
And put in subjects, the absence of which can create a monstrous boggle a few
lines later. --part1_78.1135cd7e.27d06517_boundary--