Print

Print


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.