From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jun 11 13:11:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 20:11:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 27904 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 19:45:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 19:45:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 19:45:20 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.10c.1365c21 (26124) for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <10c.1365c21.285679bc@aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:45:00 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] selma'o To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_10c.1365c21.285679bc_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_10c.1365c21.285679bc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/11/2001 2:19:59 PM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes: > > >> If about half of us agree not to even read the parts of the Book that >> mention selma'o, and half of us memorize our selma'o, then can't we watch >> the differences and get a very simple Sapir-Whorf test? I have some other >> test ideas, but no way to do them without getting better at lojban. first. > Well, it wouldn't be a S-W test, since it is not about the language. It would be a test of different sorts of heuristics for learning the language, Selma'o -- or some similar devices -- are essential for writing a grammar of the langauge, else we have at least as many rules as we have words. But they are not part of the language; they may not even correspond to a native speaker's intuitions about the structure of the language -- though at least some usually will. If you don't find them a help in learning the language, don't use 'em; if you do, do. But one way or the other you have to learn what can go where when in a sentence (which is about all a selma'o is -- some are also phonologically defined). --part1_10c.1365c21.285679bc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/11/2001 2:19:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
ragnarok@pobox.com writes:



If about half of us agree not to even read the parts of the Book that
mention selma'o, and half of us memorize our selma'o, then can't we watch
the differences and get a very simple Sapir-Whorf test? I have some other
test ideas, but no way to do them without getting better at lojban. first.



Well, it wouldn't be a S-W test, since it is not about the language.  It
would be a test of different sorts of heuristics for learning the language,  
Selma'o -- or some similar devices -- are essential for writing a grammar of
the langauge, else we have at least as many rules as we have words. But they
are not part of the language; they may not even correspond to a native
speaker's intuitions about the structure of the language  -- though at least
some usually will.  If you don't find them a help in learning the language,
don't use 'em; if you do, do.  But one way or the other you have to learn
what can go where when in a sentence (which is about all a selma'o is -- some
are also phonologically defined).    --part1_10c.1365c21.285679bc_boundary--