Jens == Jens S Larsen < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it writes:     You have to learn new concepts anyway when you learn a new     language.  Then, why not accept using new words for those new     concepts?     Jens Because that cuts you away from the reference material     Jens already existing. I don't have that experience at all!   When I learnt English, I learnt with the words articles , prepositions  directly.  (This is  partly because their are more or less meaningless.)  Using these words didn't obstruct my learning.  It in fact facilited it. If you want to learn a language, why do you resist to learn its words? You'll have to get used to that language and using those terms anyway.     Jens I'm not insisting on any particular way of teaching     Jens languages.  It just seems sensible to me that _if_ the     Jens teaching method includes naming of grammatical entities,     Jens then their names in the learner's first language might as     Jens well be provided. The Lojban   materials   have  explanations  like   sumti   = English argument in predicate logic.  That's how I  learnt the word sumti . There after, sumti   is no longer stranger  to  me.  I know what  it means.  I  understand *directly*  it upon reading.   (Unfortunately, I still have no experience of listening to Lojban speech.)  I don't have to translate it  back to argument before  I can understand the  word sumti .  In fact, I have completely no idea  of how to say sumti or argument in my native language! For those unfamiliar with predicate logic, learning the new meaning of the overloaded word   argument  wouldn't be easier than  learning the Lojban word   sumti .   The idea   of sumti can  be easily   learned through the teacher's example.  You can learn the  word sumti in the same way  and  the same speed as  you  learn the word   argument (in predicate logic), provided that you're willing to learn it.     Jens Why should a Russian be quicker to grasp article than     Jens artikula (or whatever the correct Russian form is)?  You     Jens seem to have learnt English in a tradition that makes     Jens languages more different than they really are. I  have NEVER said  that a Russian would  learn article quicker than artikula .  I've only been claiming that the former is NO SLOWER. So, why not let them learn that word  in the target language directly, when the Russian translation wouldn't help much?     Clearly, fojo (which means times , not time ) is a very     different word from tempo .     Jens English and French are confusing languages on this. Doesn't   French  use separate words   ( temps  and foi )  for these concepts?  Where's the confusion?

    Clearly, fojo (which means times , not time ) is a very     different word from tempo .     Jens English and French are confusing languages on this. Doesn't   French  use separate words   ( temps  and foi )  for these concepts?  Where's the confusion? In the weather.

Jens == Jens S Larsen < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it writes:     Jens I don't doubt that.  I just makes me wonder, considering how     Jens much English is taught in SE Asia nowadays, that there still     Jens are no words in Chinese for those concepts.  There are words     Jens in Danish for the grammatical categories of Greenlandic, why     Jens shouldn't there be words in Chinese for those of English? There  of course   exists  translations for  those grammatical  terms. However, how  much more  meaningful  are those translations   than the English words article , tense ,   etc?   Even the translations   are strangers to the learner. Similarly, how  much easier is argument than   sumti for  those who don't know predicate logic at all?     Jens And the reason you have to get used to those terms, rather     Jens than more rational ones, is that others have been using     Jens them.  (Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the oldest meaning of     Jens argument is the one in logic; the same etymological word     Jens can't have the meaning quarrel/discussion in other European     Jens languages). It's nonsense here  to talk about  the original  meaning of the  word. Most ordinary people know it by its current meaning. (Do you know the original meaning of the word gay ?  What did it mean several decades ago?  And now?)     Jens I'm not insisting on any particular way of teaching     Jens languages.  It just seems sensible to me that _if_ the     Jens teaching method includes naming of grammatical entities,     Jens then their names in the learner's first language might as     Jens well be provided. I'm not  opposing that idea.  However, it  makes no sense to  stick to the translation.   To  get the  learner  used to  the target language, words of the target  language should be repeated over  and over.  This should include grammatical terms as well.     Jens If Cantonese or at least Mandarin have been used for dealing     Jens with predicate logic (anything else would surprise me very     Jens much), then you can look up all meanings of argument in     Jens any decent English- Chinese dictionary.  You can't look     Jens sumti up, unless there's a Lojban-Chinese dictionary     Jens available.   Firstly,  I still haven't  seen  Lojban-teaching materials in Chinese. I've been  reading  such materials in  English.   The  introduction to Lojban   grammar usually have a sidenote,   explaining that sumti is actually  the argument in  predicate logic.  So, if Chinese versions of such  teaching materials exist, they would  also very probably have similar sidenotes. So, the first time encountering the word sumti , the learner can read the  sidenote  and if he   knows predicate  logic, he   will know what sumti means.   From  there on,  he  can stick  to the  word sumti . What's wrong with this?     Jens And once there are materials on Lojban in     Jens Chinese, why do you want to take the detour around English?     Jens And if there are works on predicate logic in Chinese,     Jens couldn't they be relevant to your study of Lojban? If Chinese  versions  exist, they will  have  the sidenotes explaining sumti  =   argument  in  Chinese  

So, why not let them learn that word in the target language directly, when the Russian translation wouldn't help much? Jens If there are grammars on English, written in Russian (as I'm Jens sure there are), then they'll need the Russian form too. Do you think you can speak a language fluently by solely studying its grammar in your native language? That's the way I learned Esperanto, so I know it can be done.

Skribis Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} skrev / wrote / schrieb: So, the first time encountering the word sumti , the learner can read the  sidenote  and if he   knows predicate  logic, he   will know what sumti means.   From  there on,  he  can stick  to the  word sumti . What's wrong with this? It makes it look as if there was no predicate logic before Lojban, or at least that some people want to forget that.  But if Lojban is supposed to be a practical test of the theory of predicate logic, ther might be a point in that. Or maybe not. Sau Dan requires two things of the learner: (1) to read the sidenote (doable); and (2) to know predicate logic. The latter is not terribly common. Back when I was a high school student with more enthusiasm than sense, I spent several weeks' worth of allowance money buying a copy of Rudolf Carnap's _An Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications_, which, as I remember it, was largely _base_d around predicate logic. Baby, it wasn't all that easy going! I suspect that the average individual, in China and Denmark as in the United States, is still not going to understand either sumti or argument or parameter , even after reading the sidenote. (Interesting historical note: I learned, years later, that the same Rudolf Carnap was an active Esperantist, from the years when he was attending World Esperanto Congresses in the early twenties to the early sixties, when he was listed in the Esperanto League for North America's then short and mimeographed membership list. Who knows? Maybe James Cooke Brown of Loglan fame got the very idea of creating his own language from this proponent of predicate logic and planned languages. Chances are they even knew each other personally, Brown being at UCSD and Carnap at UCLA in those days. Just an interesting possibility, of course...) Don HARLOW http://www.webcom.com/~donh/ (English version available at http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)

Rosalind == Rosalind Walter < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it writes:      Doesn't French use separate words ( temps and foi ) for ........................................................^^^     these concepts?  Where's the confusion? Sorry, a typo.  Should be fois .     Rosalind Quel temps fait-il? = Kia estas la vetero?   Isn't this an idiom? Anyway, how does it relate to the temps - fois confusion?     Rosalind je n'ai pas le temps pour So... what do you want to say?  Doesn't   temps in this sentence mean time ?  How would it confuse with fois ?     Rosalind Jen eble kialo por konfuzo! Kia konfuzo?