From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jun 03 17:48:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 4 Jun 2001 00:48:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 8153 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2001 00:48:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Jun 2001 00:48:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Jun 2001 00:48:56 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.f3.b146e08 (3861) for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 20:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 20:48:51 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f3.b146e08.284c34f3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_f3.b146e08.284c34f3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/3/2001 4:25:46 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > .u'i .i la pycyn. puza stidi le du'u ma'a gunka tu'a la'e lu la spat. li'u > po'o .i py. jinvi le du'u ma'a na bredi le li'i pensi le nalselxalbo > .iseni'ibo py. troci fanta .i ku'i paunai ta'i ma la lojban. ca'o banro .i > je'unai .e'u ze'eba darlu zo'o > > .i le'e banckule ctuca cu djica lo ka nalselpe'u je nalfarvi selmuzga > I would have said {zgana} rather than {jinvi}, since even with jbofi'e and the like it is a rare sentence that passes muster on the list, even after several goes-round. And I pretty obviously did not {troci fanta} since we have been overborne with troci since, though I did {fanta troci} -- well, not even that, simply trying to direct efforts toward more fruitful productions. Taking the rehetorical question literally (since it does not seem to have an obvious answer), I assume that it will be by more and more people getting better and better at more and more interesting things. This is rarely achieved by taking on Everest on your first hike, which rather tends to burn people out early on. I wish I could count the number of people (I probably could, come to that) who have done one abysmal translation of Laotse or Alice or a particularly opaque bit of Shakespeare --"just to get started" -- and never a lick more, nor are they heard from again. On the other hand, there are a few people who started with simple conversations and built on that who are still around. Which looks like the better plan for growing the language? The missing sumti makes the next bit obscure: who would you jokingly (or falsely) suggest argue what from now on? How relevant? And what does the typical language teacher's desire for untouched and undeveloped museum exhibits (a desire I don't recall from my days either as a student or a language teacher) have to do with anything else here? And why the property (whatever it is), rather than the thing itself? --part1_f3.b146e08.284c34f3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/3/2001 4:25:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:



.u'i .i la pycyn. puza stidi le du'u ma'a gunka tu'a la'e lu la spat. li'u
po'o .i py. jinvi le du'u ma'a na bredi le li'i pensi le nalselxalbo
.iseni'ibo py. troci fanta .i ku'i paunai ta'i ma la lojban. ca'o banro .i
je'unai .e'u ze'eba darlu zo'o

.i le'e banckule ctuca cu djica lo ka nalselpe'u je nalfarvi selmuzga




I would have said {zgana} rather than {jinvi}, since even with jbofi'e and
the like it is a rare sentence that passes muster on the list, even after
several goes-round.  And I pretty obviously did not {troci fanta} since we
have been overborne with troci since, though I did {fanta troci} -- well, not
even that, simply trying to direct efforts toward more fruitful productions.  
Taking the rehetorical question literally (since it does not seem to have an
obvious answer), I assume that it will be by more and more people getting
better and better at more and more interesting things.  This is rarely
achieved by taking on Everest on your first hike, which rather tends to burn
people out early on.  I wish I could count the number of people (I probably
could, come to that) who have done one abysmal translation of Laotse or Alice
or a particularly opaque bit of Shakespeare --"just to get started" -- and
never a lick more, nor are they heard from again.  On the other hand, there
are a few people who started with simple conversations and built on that who
are still around.  Which looks like the better plan for growing the language?
The missing sumti makes the next bit obscure: who would you jokingly (or
falsely) suggest argue what from now on? How relevant?
And what does the typical language teacher's desire for untouched and
undeveloped museum exhibits (a desire I don't recall from my days either as a
student or a language teacher) have to do with anything else here?  And why
the property (whatever it is), rather than the thing itself? --part1_f3.b146e08.284c34f3_boundary--