From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 08 12:09:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 8 Jun 2001 19:09:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 49558 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2001 19:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2001 19:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Jun 2001 19:09:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.d0.16dea707 (17384) for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:09:43 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] re: rabbity sand-laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d0.16dea707.28527cf7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_d0.16dea707.28527cf7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/8/2001 10:56:54 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > doi ro .i pe'i le si'o zo dai mapti le seltavla selcinmo cu traji le > kamselpilno .iseni'ibo lu do jinvi li'u smuni lu pe'idai > I'm sure you do and I do, too, except that I would not restrict it the 2nd person, since it will be even more useful (I suppose) talking about third parties (as in the Book). The hearer probably knows and can express his emotions in the conversation without the speaker's help (psych cases excepted). And, of course, I disagree with you about the claimed equivalence: it goes against the purpose of the distinction originally introduced (and since lost, I admit in your defense) and leaves Lojban with an old ambiguity it had gotten rid of -- and without a way to correct it easily (or Zipfily). <.i'enai .i mi ba'o cusku zo cilre .enai zo ctuca> So you did. Sorry. Though I think the move is legitmate, since the question going round was how best to improve learning and that seemed to move inevitably to teaching methods. In any case, shame on you -- who have obviously managed to learn Lojban here, for putting down those of us who have not. How do you propose to help us rather than condemn us? Oh, I wish you would though-- how else am I going to learn what is wrong with my stuff and correct it? or even figure out what you really said? For the rest, I'm sure you do but I know I don't: no one learns well in jail or otherwise in a penal state (are you sure you want a state there?). Learning works best in cooperative and caring environment -- benign neglect is not better than terror. I have no objection to students making errors and pursuing strange idea -- I do it all the time and wish ordinary students really did such things. But that does not mean that the student shouldn't have the error pointed out or the strange idea tested. I rather think you are wrong about the community's attitude toward degrees of expertise. We don't want certificates, if these convey any immunity from criticism, but there are certainly some people whose word we take as being prima facie correct and we recognize a fairly clear hierarchy of this sort. It is not, of course, absolute, for no one is a native speaker and even one of those might well slip up occasionally -- and Lord knows our popes and cardinals and all do. But I must have been speaking very imprecisely indeed, violating your prohibition (so much for freely making errors and pursuing unfamiliar -- xod is wrong! -- ideas) for you to have come up with the crazy schemes as being any of mine. Another ground for thinking that {dai} should not be used for second-person emotions, etc. --part1_d0.16dea707.28527cf7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/8/2001 10:56:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


doi ro .i pe'i le si'o zo dai mapti le seltavla selcinmo cu traji le
kamselpilno .iseni'ibo lu do jinvi li'u smuni lu pe'idai


I'm sure you do and I do, too, except that I would not restrict it the 2nd
person, since it will be even more useful (I suppose) talking about third
parties (as in the Book).  The hearer probably knows and can express his
emotions in the conversation without the speaker's help (psych cases
excepted).  And, of course, I disagree with you about the claimed
equivalence: it goes against the purpose of the distinction originally
introduced (and since lost, I admit in your defense) and leaves Lojban with
an old ambiguity it had gotten rid of -- and without a way to correct it
easily (or Zipfily).

<.i'enai .i mi ba'o cusku zo cilre .enai zo ctuca>

So you did.  Sorry.  Though I think the move is legitmate, since the question
going round was how best to improve learning and that seemed to move
inevitably to teaching methods.  In any case, shame on you -- who have
obviously managed to learn Lojban here, for putting down those of us who have
not.  How do you propose to help us rather than condemn us?

<i .e'anai do tolsatci cusku .i le si'o nilcertu gradu na mapti le jboce'u
.i pe'idai le tadni cu cilre va'o le za'i sfasa .i .ienaicai .i pe'i le
jbocilre cu selferti le ka frili srera kei .e le zu'o kalte le tolslabu
sidbo .i si'a le ni do tcidu srera kei zmadu le ni mi ciska srera .i mi
ta'enai selsajgau>

Oh, I wish you would though-- how else am I going to learn what is wrong with
my stuff and correct it?  or even figure out what you really said?
For the rest, I'm sure you do but I know I don't: no one learns well in jail
or otherwise in a penal state (are you sure you want a state there?).  
Learning works best in cooperative and caring environment -- benign neglect
is not better than terror.  I have no objection to students making errors and
pursuing strange idea -- I do it all the time and wish ordinary students
really did such things.  But that does not mean that the student shouldn't
have the error pointed out or the strange idea tested.  
I rather think you are wrong about the community's attitude toward degrees of
expertise.  We don't want certificates, if these convey any immunity from
criticism, but there are certainly some people whose word we take as being
prima facie correct and we recognize a fairly clear hierarchy of this sort.  
It is not, of course, absolute, for no one is a native speaker and even one
of those might well slip up occasionally -- and Lord knows our popes and
cardinals and all do.
But I must have been speaking very imprecisely indeed, violating your
prohibition (so much for freely making errors and pursuing unfamiliar -- xod
is wrong! -- ideas) for you to have come up with the crazy schemes as being
any of mine.  Another ground for thinking that {dai} should not be used for
second-person emotions, etc.


--part1_d0.16dea707.28527cf7_boundary--