Re: functions

[Rick Nylander <rnylander@DTSI.COM>]

Karis wrote:
>Lojbab wrote:
>
>> It is not clear yet whether we can write the book so as to require
the
>>reader
>> toalso hasve the refgrammar at hand.  I tried this once before - the
first
>>version of the book skipped phonology and told people to read what is
now
>> the
>> phonology and morphology chapters of the refgrammar.  They didn't.
>
>Personally, I think it would be a mistake to require students of the
textbook
>to have the refgrammar at hand.  First, as he says above, many won't
read it
>even if they are told to.  Second, I believe that many students would
be
>willing to pay for one book but not two when just starting out.  As it
is,
[snip]

Agreed - for the financial reason, if nothing else.  The refgram would
be best for the student who becomes serious about lojban and wants to
know all the details.  A textbook normally doesn't try to teach
everything about a language, but does allow the student to begin
learning the basics, how they apply to certain situations, and begin
constructing relatively simple texts.  A problem might be figuring out
just what "basics" of lojban are needed.

Phonology and morphology would be basic (otherwise you can't say
anything).  Numbers are usually safe, and provide practice in
pronunciation - counting to 10 in Spanish is a standard early elementary
school exercise (at least in Los Angeles).  However, I would question
the need for a complete treatment of abstractions.  Lujvo interpretation
(but not necessarily _construction_) would be useful.

In addition, most language textbooks that I have seen carry a
mini-dictionary in the back of the book.

Rik.