Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2000, Robert J. Petry, C.L. wrote: > > Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > > > I understood what was written there perfectly. And, the point is, so did you. > > Your point is whether I understand Occidental? I am flattered. > > > Otherwise, you couldn't make an argument pro or con about it. > > Look, you don't need to make points for showing that I can read > Occidental, I have said it clearly to you several times now that I can. > > > And, thus, you prove what I've been saying all along. > > You've been saying all along that I can read Occidental? > > > The folks here can read it. I notice that when I > > post something in Occidental and make no further comment about it, invariably > > something in its content will show up, > > I've noticed that when you post something in Occidental here, most of the > times it is ignored. > > > and mentioned by folks who "can't read > > Occidental." ;-) > > 8-) > > > It is uncanny, as de Wahl and others wrote, that the Esperantists > > always claimed no one could read Occidental > > I am an Esperantist, and I have never claimed anything like this. Please > stop writing falsities. > > > but they NEVER had any problems with > > what he wrote because they ALWAYS understood the articles they claimed nobody else > > could read. > > NEVER? ALWAYS? How do you know? They? > > > Did you read the rest of the post with the above in the context? And, > > it is consistent with what I have always posted, including the fact that it is easy > > to learn for the "ne-educated". > > You posted that 2,000,000,000 persons can understand it, not that they > can learn it. > > > The article was talking about writing on "medical > > profession" level subjects, which even the "ne-educat" have trouble with in their > > own language. And, if you read the rest of what I posted you will see that even the > > "ne-educat" read 45-55% in the tests given. > > I understand that you would be happy to be operated by a doctor who > understood 45-55% of what he read. > > > So, don't pick out a line and not > > present the rest of the story with it. > > By 'the whole story' you mean what you have posted, or something else? > In the first case, YOU have posted it. Should I repost the whole article > every time I needs to quote from it? > > > So yes, "It es cert que in L.I. ne es fat por > > illiterates..." Neither is Esperanto, or any of the other IAL's. > > But only you claim that it is. > > > > 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. > > > > This is true. They can with material written on the level of their knowledge. One > > certainly is not going to ask a person with no training to read a professional > > detailed medical report written for the medical profession, and ask a person with a > > high school or lower level to understand it clearly. And, further, I find it > > interesting you start with a joke. And, I think everyone knows there are levels of > > difficulty in every langauge to the newbie. There is standard text, professional > > text, poetry, jokes, etc. One of the most difficult it is claimed is jokes. > > Bullshit. He did not understand the joke not because of cultural > mismatch, but simply because he did not understand the text. Again, read > the messages you reply to before replying. > > > > 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. > > > I'm not at all impressed with your cutting apart of the text I presented and not > > including the parts that don't go along with your hope, nor your test you did. Why > > did you leave out the part about the folks without the "education"? > > Because I quoted only the parts I had something to say about. That's > standard practice. > > > Didn't that > > suit your agenda? Did you forget the "45 to 55%" which is very high compared to > > what Esperanto could/can achieve. > > But, contrary to you, no Esperantist claims that Esperanto is > comprehensible to 2,000,000,000 persons, without studying it. > > > In fact, what is not mentioned in this article > > about the test is that is was done in comparison with Esperanto to the same groups. > > Guess which one had below 45% by quite a margin? ;-) > > Esperanto? 8-) > > > And, by the way, 45-55% is > > enough to get across the basic idea to the reader. Yes, yes, leave out the > > important parts my friend. > > If only you could find people which are satisfied with understanding 50% > of what they read. > > > So, here's what I've always said. > > > > 1. Occidental can be read and understood by upwards of 2, 000, 000, 000 people. > > This is not supported by any fact, I'm afraid. > > > 2. People who will use and learn any IAL are those in "international > > communication", if they will learn and use one at all. > > Good. So people in "international communication" can use Occidental. The > rest of us must choose something else. > > > Reread my posts on the subject. > > No thanks. One time is sufficient. > > > In fact, Nick commented on one of those statements > > on "international communication" because, again, others were misconstruing what I > > said and leaving that part of what I said out of their responses to try and negate > > my point. SOP. ;-) > > Have you said in the message that I'm replying to that "Occidental can be > read and understood by upwards of 2, 000, 000, 000 people", or am I > misconstruing what you said? 8-) 8-) 8-) > > > Cordialmen, > > Bob, x+O~ > > Con i miei migliori auguri di un buon natale e di un felice anno nuovo. > Pierpaolo > > -- > Shteletiston oni batas, shtelegiston oni shatas.