At 12:01 AM 5/14/99 -0400, you wrote: >There are 18 messages totalling 1099 lines in this issue. Mostly a reply to Petry, it gets hard to edit when the points I want to respond to are in separate messages. >From: Robin Turner <[log in to unmask]> >la kris.burd. cusku di'e >> Digression on immediate recognisability: Suppose that, as a matter >> of actual fact, the world is set up in such a way that an imm. rec. >> language like Interlingua or Occidental can carve out a useful >> role for itself as a means of international communication, while >> the likes of Esperanto and Lojban, by virtue of what I'll call >> their natural self-enclosure, are destined to continue more or >> less as they are now. Under such conditions, wouldn't it be >> worthwhile for some people to pursue these imm. rec. projects? And, >> since we don't actually know in what way the world is set up, isn't >> it in fact worthwhile for some people to pursue them even now, >> especially since (like Esperanto, like Lojban) they offer their >> users genuine compensations even now (largely different ones than >> Esperanto, than Lojban)? I have no objection to anyone pursuing any project they choose for any reason. Their individual reasons will determine how worthwhile it is. >Yes. One reason why I'm less critical than some people of "hobbyists" is that >they preserve and develop languages that may later turn out to fit "the way the >world is set up" better. Personally I'm very sceptical about the whole "at-sight >readability" thing (for reasons which I'ver explained at great - and possibly >boring - length already) but if people are prepared to look into it, and >promote/develop languags which are designed to be at-sight readable, then fine. >What I object to are the exagerrated claims made by some people on this subject. And the forum on which they are made. This forum is either a group of friends sharing a common interest, or a group of intellectuals sharing an intellectual endeavor. Neither friends nor intellectuals appreciate being the recipient of marketing hype (or even the style of marketing hype) from fellow friends or from fellow intellectuals. It violates the Gricean pragmatic maxims for the conversation. It is rude. It is not friendly, nor is it intellectual. And then: >From: maf <[log in to unmask]> >Yes, so often when I read Bob's old Kosmo quotes I think they would have been >much better off not writing _anything_ about _any_ other IAL. Oh well, live and >don't learn .... The knocking of other languages, whether for "partisanship" or for "marketing advantage" alienates the supporters of those languages. For every person won over by such arguments, hundreds will be offended to the point that they will never consider the alternative, and a number at least equal to the converts will be inspired into bad-mouthing the badmouthers. We have SEEN this in the history. That is the ONLY useful lesson to learn from reading the old hashings-out. Friends might value the appraisals of other friends, but a long-dead convert to another cause who badmouths your cause is not a friend. Intellectuals, on the other hand, respond to rational argument and not testimonials. I am not sure WHO would respond favorably to a long-dead ex-Esperantist badmouthing Esperanto. >From: "Robert J. Petry" <[log in to unmask]> >maf wrote: >That's right, some don't learn, and it ain't me. I've learned a lot on this list over >the past two years, plu or minus, and what I've learned is very very interesting. >Part being, most of the, as you mentioned above in the kut, statements and >conclusions "consensusfied" today are in total error from what the originals said. I know of no conclusion that is "consensified" about Occidental other than that if there were thousands or millions of supporters back then, they abandoned their "cause", and were thus not all that committed to it. There appears to have been a trend to go over to Interlingua among such abandoners, but I have heard of no serious scientific study. That is not consensus, but rather lack of information and generally a lack of desire to dig further. >And, what I love is this. This list keeps telling me it ain't so, it won't grow, it's >dead, etc. The "list" has told you no such thing. Individuals have told you that they believe Occidental is dead, not because there aren't necessarily a few adherents scatteredf around the world, but because we see no reason to think that something that failed to thrive once has a more fertile ground in which to operate now. >From: "Robert J. Petry" <[log in to unmask]> >> I can certainly read Occidental! Didn't you know? Haven't I made this >> clear? I can't read it quite as well as English, French, German, >> Esperanto, Interlingua or Spanish, but about as well as I can read Italian >> or Portuguese, neither of which I've ever studied. > >Well, so can millions of others! And, that is the beginning point! You _cannot_ >do that with Esperanto, I can pick out many roots in Esperanto text, many roots in Occidental text. Sometimes by stringing roots together I can get some idea what the person might be saying, usually based on prior context (I would not expect Petry to compliment Esperanto or criticize Occidental, and therefore will reject an interpreatation that might seem to do either). But I do not think I am "reading" this because I do not fully comprehend. And at my level of observation, I see no EFFECTIVE difference between Esperanto and Occidental in such supposed at-sight readability, even though I EXPECT more readability from Occidental given the claims of its supporters and what I know about the respective language claims. Now a systematic test might show that I could pick out 50% more words in Accidental than in Esperanto text, but that turns out not to be all that much more useful - it helps not at all with the words that I cannot pick out. Based on the language design, I would expect Interlingua to have approximately as many recognizable roots as Occidental, but as well to be no more "readable" to an untrained English speaker than the other two. >And, you reading Occ without training, and me >and others not being able to read Esperanto without training is all the answer >needed. No it isn't because I cannot read either without training. And I am not interested in getting the training because of the style of argument/teaching used by the trainer. >So, I can reach you with Occidental and you can't reach me with >Esperanto, your favorite, unless I study it. So you claim to understand NO Esperanto text "at-sight" and all Occidental texts "at-sight". >Occidental does what Esperanto cannot and never will be able to do, period. Maybe for you. >And, the evidence is everywhere in the IAL field, and more >and more being shown in the public field. Occ is an INTER national language. None >of the others on the table at the moment are. You make a comparison with Esperanto here, but it is not Esperanto that claims at-sight-readability in the way you do. Interlingua might make such a claim. Do you similarly claim not to be able to read any Interlingua text? I can shoot at Occidental for not having the features that Lojban has and Occidental does not. But I will not claim that Lojban is guaranteed success and Occidental is guaranteed failure by this fact. You seem to be doing this with Esperanto. It simply fails to convince. >Occidental is the INTER language, Interlingua is a "semi" INTER language [and the >easier examples of ILa that come close to this are over 90% Occidental], or maybe Accidental is 90% Interlingua. >> This is again your argument that everyone can read Occidental at first >> sight. But Occidental has basically the same strengths and weaknesses as >> Interlingua, except that Interlingua's vocabulary is chosen by formula and >> Occidental's by the author's gut instinct. Actually I favor more >> regularity and fewere exceptions (or if you prefer, fewer rules & >> sub-rules) than either one has. Therefore, I prefer a language like >> Esperanto (or Ido) to Occidental. > >This whole statement is an assumption. I see several statements there, none of which seem assumptive in nature. Most seem like opinions, and one reflects reported claims about how the words of each langauge were selected. Those claims may or may not be true. >First, I did not say anywhere "everyone" >can read Occidental. I said multiple millions can, and this CANNOT be done with >Esperanto with even the greatest stretch of Esperanto arguments. Where in the above paragraph did HE refer to Esperanto or claim that Esperanto had the same strengths as Oxidental (this is fun - the first was an axidental typo, and now I am tempted to see how many ways I can misspell the language name and still have it plausibly pronounced the same - ah well, I will continue that some other time). He made a comparison between Interlingua and Occidental on at-sight readability. You keep trying to say he is comparing with Esperanto. This says little for your Engish at-sight reading capability. >You are incorrect about how the vocabulary was chosen. And, Occidental is more >regular than ILa. And, the word's were not chosen by "gut instinct". This is a >baloney argument to support a preference and is based on no facts whatsoever. >If you truly mean you favor more regularity and fewer exceptions, then you will >drop Esp. today, and take up Occidental. This is an old rehashed argument >disproven over and over again. It is not "disproven", because Ken is not convinced by the supposed disproof. >And, what fewer rules? All the needed rules for >Occ can be printed on a postcard, and they are fewer than Esp. 's 16. The attempt to reduce a conlang to 16 rules are fewer is a silly game. I also did a comparison with Esperanto showing that Lojban could describe in 11 rules what Esperanto describes in 16. But my argument was not to say that Lojban is easier to learn, but that the rule count claims were complete garbage. If all the rules for Occidental can be printed on a postcard, then I expect a computer parser and word-analyzer that will NEVER make a mistake and will process all of your rules and will substantially process all of the language using only root/word lists as data. If it is as simple as you say, you should have this for me by next week, because somewhere in your burgeoning supporters on the computer savvy internet will be someone who knows the programming. >Esperanto >is an illusion of simplicity over Occidental. And, since you prefer Esperanto, or >Ido, why don't you post with it here? And, I'll post only in Occidental. That >would be a good test of readibility, regularity, etc. That would be a test of at sight readability, not of regularity. The test of regularity will be to look at a list of rules and see how long in takes to find an exception that breaks a rule. I managed 5 seconds with one of your Occidental rules below. >And, the folks being tested have to be >from the general public. For, they ultimately are the ones to make the final >decision on using an IAL or not, right? Not hardly. Such decisions will be made by the educated elite with political power to gain formal recognition and the direction of corporate and governmental financial resources to the promotion of the cause. > Unless we want to "force" an IAL on them. You would instead "hype" it on them. In my opinion, this is just as bad. >> Esperanto puts the power of two-way communication into the hands of >> everyone, even beginners. "Naturalistic" planlingvoj give the ability to >> read to the favored ones, the speakers of the chosen source languages, but >> even they must work harder at two-way communication than is the case with >> Esperanto. Shall we collaborate on designing a test? > >Yes, of course. I mentioned it above. Your test is invalid. Ken mentioned favored speakers. His test would require testing with only people who are not speakers of European languages. Tell me how many Chinese Occidentalists there are, and how rapidly you are spreading in THAT market. >ILa's vocabulary is more localized in that it is an attempt at mimicing >sud-romanic lingues. And, this does limit ILa's overall at sight readibility. No, it enhances it for some and reduces it for others. If the market is somewhat familiar with the source languages, it will appear more recognizable. >> No, the fact is that although Occidental had its day in the sun, it failed >> to grip. There's some great experimental and experiential evidence for >> you! There may be a wide variety of reasons for that fact, but it does >> seem unlikely to change. > >This is nonsense, Ken. It was only placed before IAListes, a very limited field. >It has never been put before the public's eyes. In 1880 there were few IAListes. Esperanto was marketed *primarily* to the public. You are claiming that even in its heydey, NO ONE attempted to do with Occidental what was doen rather trivially with Esperanto by simply publishing a book? For that matter, were any books on Occidental published in any natlang? If so, then you are wrong. If they had been marketing to the IAListes, they would have published in Esperanto or some other IAL. >It is now, and that is why it is growing. EVERY other conlang with Internet support is growing. Lojban is growing, probably as fast as Occidental, and we are doing so without hype, and only by word of mouth. >You are mirroring Volapu"k kinds of arguments about Esperanto when it >first appeared. And, this is the old hackneyed argument with no basis in fact. It >is a mere wish that Occidental failed. It did fail. You may revive it just as the Volapukists may revive their effort. but it failed nonetheless. >Easy, I switch to other international >words until I find the ones you are most familiar with, I guarantee that if you tried this with me on the street, I would be equally baffled by any of the choices. I cannot even understand ENGLISH when spoken by someone with a bad accent, and you want me to recognize "international" roots mangled in non-English ways spoken by a foreigner. >and I slow down because English >speakers don't understand how to speak rapidly like the Italianos, Mexicanos, and other >beautiful languages. Ah, someone who feels a language must be spoken rapidly to be beautiful. Maybe this is part of the aesthetic issue. Other than poetry, I prefer someone speaking slowly and clearly when they are trying to communciate. Speed is not beautiful to me. >From that basis, we begin to communicate. Now, if I get the basic >information I need, I go on and thank the individual. If, on the other hand, that >individual finds that it was very useful to be able to understand me, and he/she wants >to do the same, I can teach him/her about Occidental right there & show them the simple >rules they need to know. For example: > >Sr. un parole con -t es li passate. Por exemple, in anglesi li passate es representat >por -d o -ed soven. Well you are either talking about past tense or passive voice, I think. Of course, this presumes that the target language even has these concepts. Russian has two past tenses and a variety of passives. >In addir, "li" es articul definit. >"un" li articul indefinit. I understood that. But what do you do if the people in the target language do not use articles at all (Russian again), much less distinguish between definite and indefinite. (No idea whether Estonian does. Maybe Robin can talk about how someone Turkish would respond to this lesson.) >Now, with very little effort, unless you can't understand "futur" "passate" "presente" In context of each other, I do, but "passive" was my first assumption for "passate", and you must admit would give a decidedly different flavor to understanding what you wrote. >then you now have most of what you need to understand Occidental, and I have shown it to >you in Occidental. Except that I will forget it by tomorrow, at which point I will be as much in the dark as I am today. > You won't find exceptions to the above in Occidental so there are no >curves to watch out for. Har har. Just watch me. >Now, with very little effort anyone can begin right now writing, speaking and using >Occidental. Now, many vocabulary works are already known by you in Occidental. zero. >So, how do you find them? > >Start with a simple exercise. Think of the words you know that end in -tion or -ion. First one that came to mind. "nation". Sorry 'bout that. >speculation for example. How do we find the verb in Occidental? assuming we want to (the concept that words get converted between nouns and verbs by playing with endings is already a bias not widespread in English, which prefers to verb nouns rather than to add endings). >Simple. The suffix in Occidental is -tion. So, remove it. I play along na- >That leaves specula. Now, all verbs in Occidental do not end in ar, er, ir. They end in >-r. > >So, add the -r to specular, and now you have the Occidental verb. nar. Now, what does it mean, oh guru of complete and utter regularity. >Then, by using the >word, you will find out if it is inter-national enough or not. Oh great - another (albeit the same root) "internar" must be "to make international", right? Of course it also looks like it might mean "to put inside" based on at sight recognizability rather than hokum rules. Your claim is broken practically before I started. >Now, if you have another word like: >nomination, remove the -tion, leaves nomina, add -r and you get nominar. Which means what? To nominate? i.e. to recommend for a position? Or based on Latinate roots, does it means "to name" (all this assumes that the infinitive is the most important form of the verb or that there is no other form. In English, neither is true. In Russian, the former is true. >introduction. Now this is a different rule. Or rather it is an exception. BTW, why remove "tion" and not "ion"? >Adplu, vu posse da un command in Occidental in tis maniere. I see no verb, since nothing ends with 'r'. You are saying to Adplu that "you are the posse of a command in Occidental in this hand". So much for at-sight readability. >Li verbe es "responder". Por li command it es necessi usar "Ples" con li verbe. Por >exemple: Ples responder! To make a command, you say "Please". How polite %^) >E it es possibil dar un comman in tis maniere. responder - -r = responde. Alor, in tis >maniere di: "Responde! Responde!". > >Now, frankly, you know more than you need to know to now use Occidental actively, har har har. >beginning right now. Why? Because you already know all the words you need to begin using >Occidental. What you didn't know before was how to add the endings of Occidental. And I still don't. Because in the two lines of yours immediately above, I see not a single instance of a word or concept to which I can apply any of your rules. No commands, no infinitives, no -ly adverbs, no -ed pasts or passives, no futures, no -tion words. >Of course, there is more to learn. Understatement of the century. >But, now you are an Occidentalist. [Guffaw!] >How much simpler can you get? With Lojban, to make a noun into a verb (or predicate, in our case), you simply just leave it alone (but do not include any article). To make an adverb, leave it alone, but put it before another such word. To make a command, use "ko" as the subject, as the imperative subject meaning "you". You needn't specify past, present, or future, unless context makes it unclear, in which case you can optionally mark tense by preceding with pu, ca, and ba respectively (unless you want to refer to an "event" perfectively, in which case it is pu'o, ca'o, and ba'o). No exceptions at all, no additional rules for these constructs. All content words in the language are equally nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs depending on position and existence of an article. The verbal sense of a noun, by the way, is the one which comes from putting something the noun describes in the subject. Thus the Lojban verb equivalent of "to arm a man" is to be an upper limb of a person, which "birka" means. ko birka means I am commanding you to be an upper limb of a person. ba'o birka is the aftermath of being an arm of a person (maybe it was cut off). Now Lojban has very few at-sight-readable roots, but the rules are so much simpler as to make up for it, and you need not worry at all about parts of speech, since they are all one, or endings, because they are none (and hence need no changing because the root ends in the wrong letter). See. I can play the game too. Except that Lojban *really* has no exceptions. >And, with what I've just shown you, within a weekend you can become fluent >in Occidental! Do that with Esp. Please, be my guest. You can do it with Lojban too, as you can see. Just learn enough roots, and you'll be fluent in a week. This is what I would have to do with Occidental, since I cannot apply the Occidental rules to just any English words. mi non caner apper li Occidental ruli juster any Anglesi wordi. (Did that make perfect sense. After all, I used the verb "can", dropped the 'ly' ending of "apply", and used "to just" as an infinitive like a good naive follower of rules that have NO exceptions. >> The most appropriate IAL is not simply a question of who can read the most without >> bothering to learn anything. > >And, as I just showed you, now you can not only read it, you can begin writing it and >speaking it with the vocabulary you already have. Thoroughly disproven, unless everything I did according to your rules actually meant what the English meant. >And, with some simple experience, you >can learn to hone it to your desires. Esque it grand? And, it didn't take you even >twenty minutes to learn the above. And, there is not misunderstanding in the >communication given. ROTFLMAO (what is that in Occidental? In Lojban it is "za'ocai", probably with a .ionai (disrespect) thrown in before it in this case.) >> Criticising Esperanto on grounds that no proponents of Esperanto have _ver_ claimed >> (AFIK) is a cheap shot (like criticising Occi or IALA for not being culturally >> neutral). > >Cheap shot? When is the truth a cheap shot? And, is it a cheap shot to say Esperanto is >not an INTER language? It is a cheap shot to define (or redefine) "INTER language" so as to include your language and exclude Esperanto, especially when the criteria you are using break down as easily as I just broke them down. >Of course not, for they will even admit they are not. That wasn't >a cheap shot, that was just presenting the strong point of Occidental with an example >everyone can see and understand. To which I have presented the weak point (that this "strong point" doesn't work) with examples that everyone can see and understand. >Even Esperantists have admitted, without fear, that they >aren't "at sight" like Occ. and other things. There was no cheap shot at all. I didn't >hit below the belt, like a fighter in the ring, I hit head on with a "legal" point. It is "illegal" to in an argument to coin words like "INTER language" with meanings that are merely marketing hype. >From: Ken Caviness <[log in to unmask]> >>Cheap shot? When is the truth a cheap shot? And, is it a cheap shot to say >Esperanto is >>not an INTER language? Of course not, for they will even admit they are= > not. > >In a previous message in this thread, I said that we needed a clearer >definition of this idea of an "Inter-language". Ken, we agree entirely. >According to one >alternative I suggested, even Occidental is _not_ one! According to >another possible definition, Esperanto and Ido and Interlingua and >Occidental and Novial and ... are _all_ "Inter-languages". And maybe Lojban? %^) >From: "Robert J. Petry" <[log in to unmask]> >I can't help it if your mind can't see the light when it is placed in front of it. And we can't help it if you are an arrogant malvecnu (mal makes a Lojban word into a derogative, and you need not know any more). >But, the difference is going to knock you over when it finally hits you what is >meant. It is something you will easily self-discover if you keep looking. The >problem is, partly, that we use our own preconcieved idea of what "international" >is. But, "inter-national" now, that is something else! Whoa, when it hits you, >wow, I'm going to like hearing your response then. Why should they mean anything different. I mean we are talking at-sight-readability of international roots that have clear and precise meanings, aren't we? >Cordialmen, BTW, I meant to ask when you explained this. Does this mean that you are speaking in the manner of an after-dinner-drink? >Example: >"Bob, Occidental is stupid for using l', n', t'." >Opposite: Sorry folks, those were dropped long ago. Oh, so the name of the language is now Occidea? >"Bob, Cosmoglotta flopped, is dead." >Opposite: Sorry folks, I have the current issue. Latin is a dead language, but a lot of priests speak it in Catholic services. It remains just as dead. >"Bob, don't you know Occidental is dead as a doornail, why try to revive it?" >Opposite: "Sorry there are representatives and adherentes in 15 contries, right >now". Lojban has more like 30. Are we ahead in the race? >"Bob, the public can't read Occidental, because I, a proponent of xxx IAL can't >read it." >Opposite: "Oh my g-d, look at this, I can read it. Oh my gawd, look at this, I can mangle it. >this is amazing!" You are amazing. Make that mal-amazing, to semi-Lojbanize it. >I could give more examples, but hey, you've all read them already. "mi coud give more exampi, bu hey vu've a read hem aready". Great Occidental (oops Occidea, since I took out the n's, t's, and l's that it doesn't use) >Just think, Occidental is growing as we speak. Like a cancer or a wart? lojbab ---- lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** [log in to unmask] Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ " Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.