Subject: Re: [lojban] re: rabbity sand-laugher

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:09:43 EDT

In a message dated 6/8/2001 10:56:54 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.