Print

Print


I'm replying to several messages with this one.

----------------
Chris Burd wrote:

> I hate to crab, but using a single short joke for your sample text comes
> close to testing what I'd call the "prima vista ad absurdum" hypothesis.

I don't disagree with this.  I wanted to test Bob Petry's claim that 2
Gigapersons could read Occ at-sight.  I thrown in the Ia for
comparison.

> When Jay posted that one in INTERLNG I had to read it twice to decide if it
> was funny or not. I decided it wasn't (though it is a cute story, if true).

Whatever.  I was not testing the capabilities of Iaist in writing
humorous prose.

BTW, the person did not get the joke not because he thought that
the scene described was not funny, but because he couldn't understand
key elements of the scene described.

----------------
maf wrote:

> Chris Burd wrote:

> > I hate to crab, but using a single short joke for your sample text comes
> > close to testing what I'd call the "prima vista ad absurdum" hypothesis.
>
> I'd classify it as the 'hoping it will fail' hypothesis.

Can you explain better what you mean?  FWIW, to this person I only
said I wanted to test how much he understood of the texts.  My
impression is that he believed that the more he could understand, the
happier I was.  And anyway, I have more important things to use my hopes
for.

> (If the same test were done with monolingual Poles or Poles who know some
> English from a private course or a few years in high school the results would
> be far worse I realize).

So, your result is not that different from mine.  Thanks for
the confirmation.

> Even knowing that, I still wouldn't just dismiss the whole 'at
> sight' camp as contemptiously as Pierpaolo did.

I have not dismissed anything.  And I have no opinions about Occidental
as a language.  But I have clarified to myself the meaning of Bob Petry's
claims. I thought that the readers of this list could be interested
in the result of this little test.  That's all.

----------------
Robert J. Petry, C.L. wrote:

> I know it belabors a point. but, he did admit to being an
> Esperantist. He didn't say whether his friend was, or not.

I included in my messages about the test all the informations about
this person that I judged to be pertinent.  If he was an
esperantist, first, I would have written so.  Second, probably he
would have done better.

----------------
Robert J. Petry, C.L. wrote:

> There is a standard result that follows a standard pattern. For exemple:
>
> "Experimentes de Immediat Coprensibilita in Interlingue"

I wonder if you have read and understood what you have posted.

I'll quote just this:

> It es cert que li L.I. ne es fat por illiterates, ma por personnes
> queles have international contactes e posedent un medial
> instruction.

And then I could quote dozens of messages from you where you claim
that Occ is comprehensible to n-billions of people, and one who knows
Occ will be able to understand the same n-billions of people.

> Li resultat quel
> contradi ti de Dr. Lieberman -- monstrat que 90% del textu esset
> comprendet de persones con superior linguistic practica (multes ha
> atinget 100%),

So, you quote two different tests, the most favorable to the
at-sight-school of which, claims that the text is understood by
"persones con superior linguistic practica".  I'm really not
impressed.

----------------
Robert J. Petry, C.L. wrote:

> And, it is consistent that for some strange reason Esperantists
> can't find anyone who can easily read Occidental and/or Interlingua.

If you want to be taken seriously, start by reading the messages you
reply to.  I already told you that I can read most of what you write
in Occidental, and I'm sure that if I start searching, I'll find
several other persons who can read it.  I doubt, however, that I could
find 2,000,000,000 of them.


P.

--
Shteletiston oni batas, shtelegiston oni shatas.