Print

Print


Je 30 maj 00, je 16:31, Pierpaolo Bernardi skribis:

> ----------------
> 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.
>
Actually, the two sets of results _don't_ contradict each other. If I
remember correctly, the young Lieberman's ad hoc experiment,
performed in the late fifties, which, like Pierpaolo's, seems to have
been carried out only to satisfy himself of something,involved a
couple of dozen of his medical colleagues, who may -- or may not --
 have been persons "con superior linguistic practica" (it was
assumed at that time that most medical people would know Latin,
but even then I suspect that this was a tradition more honored in
the breach than in the observance). Two sets of results in such an
experiment only contradict each other if (a) they involve the same
sort of test, and (b) the test involves comparable sets of test
subjects.

Incidentally, does the data involved in this test show what "superior
linguistic practica" means in quantitative terms?

For those interested, Dr. E. James Lieberman later founded, and is
now on the board of directors of, the Esperantic Studies
Foundation. You may hear more of ESF later -- it recently inherited
a bit of money (two million dollars, so I've heard).

> ----------------
> 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.
>
I, an Esperantist, can decipher both Occidental and Interlingua
without _too_ much trouble (and when I'm willing to spend the time
on it). Based on early experiences with Interlingua, I've put this
down to my knowledge of Esperanto. As I've posted here before, I
thought for a long time that this was a personal idiosyncrasy, but in
recent years I've run across other people who've had the same
experience.

Bob knows well that I can "read" Occidental, if only based on my
debunking of a long Occidental (in, not about) article he once
posted in which Wahl praised Hoerbiger's flaky pseudo-science.
Bob, contrariwise, seems rather proud of the fact that he can't read
Esperanto -- surprising, given the amount of knowledge he has
about what goes on in magazines written in Esperanto...


-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/don/don.html