View source for level 0 Booklet Errata Chapter 4


=== Chapter 4 Errata ===

=== Completed ===

** Lingistic Issues *with* Lojban?  I think?  -Robin
*** I'd have issues with that, :-) Other votes?

**** Maybe "Linguistic Issues Pertaining to Lojban" -- Adam
***** Works for me. -Robin

*** <hr> between the questions.  -Robin
** Question 1

*** "nderstanding the potential for Sapir-Whorf effects may lead to better inter-cultural understanding, promoting communication and peace."  -- Aaawww, what a cute fwuffy widdew bunny!!  -Robin
**** I wanted this out, but John overruled me...

** Question 2
*** "Ambiguity can be judged on four levels: the phonological-graphical, the morphological, the syntactic, and the semantic."  -- Sounds wrong.  syntactical and semantical?  -Robin

**** And yet, that's completely correct. semantical does not exist, and syntactical is rare. Likewise, morphologic and phonologic do not exist. As I've always maintained, English is a whore... (You certainly can't pin this on Greek, because the -al bit is Latin; it took English to smoosh them together like this.)
*** "although pauses can be unambiguously identified in written text from the morphological rules alone."  -- although *required* pauses.  -Robin

**** Don't quite get it, but am putting in anyway.
*** "produces a unique parse for every Lojban text." -- produces a unique parse for all strictly correct/valid Lojban text.  Or something like that.  -Robin

**** for every Lojban text that follows its grammatical norms.
** Question 4

*** ''nanmu, meaning 'adult human male'. '' ''nanmu'' just means ''human male''. The gismu list says that it is not necessarily adult.
** Question 10

*** ''lenu do jacysabji da cu nibli lenu da ba banro''. That should probably be ''rinka'' instead of ''nibli'', and the scope of each ''da'' ends when the subsentence it is a part of ends, and so both ''da''s could legitimately refer to different things, without a ''(ro)da zo'u'' before the sentence.
**** Well spotted. That's why we need a ''Lojban for Intermediates''...

** Question 15
*** The question claims that Lojban has ''non-English diphthongs''. I don't think that Lojban actually has any of those.

**** Loglan holdover. Struck.
*** ''Medial consonant clusters are also restricted, to prevent ... consecutive stops.'' Consecutive stops are in no way prohibited in Lojban.

**** Loglan holdover. Struck.
*** "How can a language be appropriate as an international auxiliary language when it is difficult to pronounce?"  -- I notice that "Who the hell said lojban was an int aux lang?" doesn't appear in the answer.  8)  -Robin

**** Again, holdover from the 1969 discussion of Loglan. Any mention of auxiliary language is joyfully struck (exorcising my esperantic demons), and supplanted with 'culturally neutral', which is the real point of any such questions.
*** The IPA character for the Lojban buffering sound appears as barred i (mid high unrounded vowel) in the PDF print, but small capital I was probably intended. -[[User:tsali|tsali]]

**** While barred i is the realisation I'd prefer (more distinct than lax front I), and is certainly allowed by CLL, it is inconsistent with the example given; so I yield.
** Question 16

*** "The Logical Language Group has proposed formal tests of the algorithm, and is instrumenting its software used for teaching vocabulary to allow data to be gathered that will confirm or refute this hypothesis" -- Long since has done, I think.  -Robin
**** and has instrumented its software used for teaching vocabulary to allow data to be gathered that can confirm or refute this hypothesis.

** Question 22
*** "In a highly complex system (which any language, even an artificial one, is),"  -- Even a well-developed artificial one, anyways.  -Robin

**** Any language is a highly complex system?even an artificial language, as long as it is non-trivial. (This certainly holds true for Lojban!) In such a system, the interaction of the design features displays properties that are more than the sum of its parts.
*** "insights that would then be tested in the natural languages." -- s/in the/in/ -Robin

** Question 23
*** "we don't know what features of a language might be determining to a culture."  -- I fail to understand this sentence, and I don't know if it's the sentence or me.  -Robin

**** Oddly enough, it looks to me like a calque from Greek, but I'm fairly sure it's John's. I'll make it "decisive".
** Question 24

*** Your math is dubious, as you never theorize how long it takes to learn a 4th language.
**** Am querying John.

***** Saith John, it should probably be worded more like this:  "Assume that you can learn a second language in four years, and further languages in two more years each.  If you can learn an artificial language (to the same degree) in only one year due to its greater simplicity and regularity, then you can save a year by learning the artificial language first and then spending only two years on further natural languages, even if you never use the artificial language again.
***** But while this argument may have some merit for E-o, it's complete shite for Lojban, [[John Cowan MO|John Cowan MO]].  I would be in favor of dropping this question altogether.

***** Heh.  Until someone does a study proving it wrong...  8)  --RobinLeePowell
***The editors have spoken. I've commented the question out, and John is right that Lojban is a little too alien to serve as a good 'propaedeutic' (pre-teaching tool). We'll wait on the stats; Lojban propaganda doesn't really need more Gedanken, and this is an angle the Esperantists have been long pushing, with noone visible in Lojban to push back; it's too risky a move politically. Out it goes. -- n

** Quesiton 25
*** ''zdane'ikemcmafagyso'ikemprununje'a'': ''je'a'' is a rafsi for ''jecta'', not ''jelca''. -- Adam

**** Middle Lojban holdover. Struck.

** Question 5:  s/comparision/comparison/  -ScottW
** Question 13: s/necesssary/necessary/    -ScottW

** Question 16: s/occurence/occurrence/ (or is this a Commonwealth spelling?) -ScottW
** Question 19: s/sufficent/sufficient/    -ScottW

*** [[Moved from below because I have a comment. Move it back afterwards.|Moved from below because I have a comment. Move it back afterwards.]]  "Many Amerindian languages use these type of words." -- Native American, please.  Indians are from India.  -Robin
**** Though Amerindian is utterly standard terminology in linguistics, this document is not intended for linguists; reluctantly changed.

***** "Native American" refers to anyone born in the Americas, no matter what their ancestry. Pragmatically, it refers to American aboriginals, but then pragmatically so does "Indian" and "American Indian". "Amerindian" is never used to refer to anything but American aboriginals, and such a contraction isn't a possible way to refer to an American of Bharat ancestry or origin in English, and so especially if that's the standard term in linguistics, I think that's what should be used. Certainly no non-linguist will be confused or even surprised by the usage of "Amerindian". (Also under Grammar->attitudinals) -- Adam
***** Overruled; the denotation of 'Native American' is also clear, and less obviously jargonish than 'Amerindian'. As proven by Robin. :-)