Re: Lojbab on lojban list (Was: Re: reply to And #3)

[Rick Nylander <rnylander@DTSI.COM>]

Carl responding to me:
>>>But I notice no lack of help
>>>from any of you when a beginner does ask a question.
>
>Depends on the question.  I posted an (admittedly frivolous)
translation attempt
>here a while back and practically begged for commentary; the silence
was
>deafening.

Well, so much for my powers of observation.  Might you accept that as
tacit approval?

>I received a grand total of 1 reply, and his comments were such that I
wasn't
>sure how to apply them.

You could ask for clarification.  Surely someone here would be able to
explain.  (I'm not saying, BTW, that it was anyone's fault that you
didn't understand.  The responder may have simply misjudged your level
of expertise in lojban, linguistics, or logic.)

I can understand your reticence, though.  You don't notice me posting
a-heck-of-a-lot of lojban, do you?  I'm trying to build my basic
vocabulary now, and I prefer to make my initial mistakes in private (my
personal decision, not encouragement for emulation).  I can embarrass
myself adequately in public using English.

Chris responding to me:
>It's a *dessert topping*, doi bakni.

I think that either I'm supposed to be insulted, or I don't understand
something about how {doi bakni.} is used in that context.  Vocative -
"Oh, cow."?  BTW, the list also tastes great _and_ is less filling, when
eaten with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti.

>>I have noticed that
>>beginner oriented conversations tend to be relatively short, usually
>>asking a question and receiving the word(s) of God(s).  =20
>
>What do you think would be a useful way to deal with that?  I think a =
>few times I've answered a beginner question in that way, and you're =
>right, it does tend to sort of stop the conversation.  Any idea about a
=
>better way to answer?

Actually, I was not criticizing the way that beginners are answered
(although Carl has something to say on it).  The nature of beginner
questions is that they usually don't require the kind of deep discussion
that the issues raised by Jorge et al do.   The beginner questions tend
to be on the line of "how do I say..." and "how's this ..."  Once they
get answered (IF they get answered), the issue is resolved.  In those
cases where the beginner doesn't get answered, like Carl, they probably
_would_ become too intimidated to persist.  (Sorry to hold you up as an
example, Carl.)

>> I've noticed one or two occasions where the
>>(advanced) people engaged in the debate didn't know what it was about
>>either - "Oh, *that's* what the problem is?"
>
>This echoes Lojbab's idea of having an official Issues List with
current =
>problem areas and proposed conclusions.

The idea is certainly sound.  I think there was something in the list
archives about this.  Someone mentioned it, and the response was that
someone would have to comb the list, following (and *understanding*) the
threads, and then post the summaries.  There were no volunteers for the
job. (I'm sure the summaries would then be disputed, leading to more
threads to follow - ad nauseum :-(

But witness lojbab's later post:
>>>>> I think that usage will gravitate towards a specific meaning,
>>>>> which meaning for jei is the one where Ch 11, 7.3) wil come to be
considered
>>>>> invalid sumti raising.
>>>
>>>Which one is that? (Our web connection is down again so I can't
>>>check.)
>
>mi djuno lejei la frank cu bebna
>It should have been
>mi djuno tu'a lejei la frank cu bebna
>or
>mi djuno fi lejei la frank cu bebna

>to not be sumti rasing since the x2 of djuno is normally a ledu'u
abstract
>sumti

What a wonderful thing - Here we have, in close order, a chapter, a
section, and a simple note I can pencil into my refgram (when it gets
here - real soon now :-)  All that's missing is a _direct_ statement of
the problem the note is intended to address.

(Yeah, I'm aware of And's later post disputing the correction - <sigh>.)

Rik.