Print

Print


Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:

> [kut]
>
> I've noticed that when you post something in Occidental here, most of the
> times it is ignored.

Yes, they do, until it is convenient to try and make a negative point against it.
[kut]

>
> > 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.

Didn't you just claim your friend couldn't read it? Goes to my point. And, then conclude
with, something like, "well, so much for at-sight"...?

>
>
> > 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?

And, didn't you just claim above you have said you could read it? Goes to my point.

>
>
> > 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.

Oh, I'm sorry about that. They can learn it also, even faster and easier than with
Esperanto.

>
> > 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.

this doesn't equate with my statement. The statement is about the non-educated being able
to read medical level material or not. Not, whether some uninformed Dr. is going to
operate.

>
> > 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?

No, just don't leave out a simple sentence that covers your negative. That's all.

> > 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.

I never claimed that Esperanto, or Occidental was made for illiterates. I do know that
elementary school level folks can read Occidental. But, that doesn't qualilfy them as
medical professionals. And, that was Lieberman's argument, that medical professional
level educated people couldn't read correctly InterlinguA. They weren't even tested on
Occidental in that test, only InterlinguA. The Occidental writer was responding with
surprise at this result, and responded that with Occidental Hugon's tests and his own
personal experience along with many others showed Lieberman's conclusion was not so for
Occidental.

> [kut]
>
> 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.

Bullshit is not a viable counter argument. It is a personal emotional expression. Did I
say it was because of "cultural mismatch"? Besides, it was in InterlinguA, was it not?
Your first post made me think that the whole test was in Occidental.

>
> [kut]
>
> Because I quoted only the parts I had something to say about.  That's
> standard practice.

Of course. That way one can leave out the other part that says otherwise.

> > 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.

That's right. They just claim that therefore no other language can do what Esperanto
can't do. It upsets some of them if this is found out to be untrue, and that some other
language can do what Esperanto can't. Others don't care one way or the other.

> > 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-)

Correct.

> > 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.

I didn't say or even imply they would be happy with 50%. I said, that "is enough to get
across the basic idea to the reader." Whether they wish to go beyond that is their own
choice. However, even that much can't be done with certain other IAL's.

> > 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.

Sure it is. It is based on the same measuring tools used by Esperanto to come up with
their 2,000,000 figures. That's how I arrived at the figures. I used Esperanto's example
of how to figure these numbers out.

> > 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.

There's something else? ;-)

>
> > Reread my posts on the subject.
>
> No thanks.  One time is sufficient.

Not if you didn't read them the first time.

> > 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-)

Yes to both.

By the way, when you're ready we can go on to other things. Thanks.

Cordialmen,
Bob, x+O~