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.