On 21 Apr, 16:13, LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
wrote:
"blackhead" == blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net
writes:
blackhead> The usefulness of already existing symbols is being
blackhead> extended; Anyone that can read English and is familiar
blackhead> with numbers will know what l8 means without being
blackhead> formally taught to do so.

Really? Do you know what "l10n" means, then?

No, but it may have been constructed by someone lacking socially
intelligence and so the word may lack the ability to be understood by
most of the population. What does it mean?

Interesting. There is something similar in the Netherlands, in
national politics, where a party to take part in an election must be a
"vereniging" (association? society?) which must have at least two
members. This Freedom Party (founded by Mr. Wilders, yes, the guy that
made Fitna) solves this by making one member Mr. Wilders himself, and
the other a foundation (Stichting) of which he is the only official.

Other political parties can have many members, this new party does not
accept any new members. It helps avoid differences of opinion and
enhances clarity, of course.

On Apr 19, 10:09 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

On Apr 19, 11:06 pm, "dmitri mosier/iowa city, Iowa"

drm...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:39 pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
wrote:

To  _pretend_ to  be  completely specifiable  by  only 16  grammatical
rules.

Well............seems anti-Esperantists have their own little pet
myths.

And dimwits have never been exposed to Esperantist propaganda.

Fuck off petey........Esperantists have NEVER stated that the entirety
of E-o grammar is contained in the 16 rules. Morphology?  Sure, but
not the whole grammar.

Fuck off petey........

Esperantists have NEVER stated that the entirety
of E-o grammar is contained in the 16 rules.

Morphology? Sure, but not the whole grammar.

dmitri mosier:

Fuck off petey........

Estu iom �entila, dmitri.

Esperantists have NEVER stated that the entirety
of E-o grammar is contained in the 16 rules.

Yes we have. In as much as "the entirety" can be interpreted as "all
you need to know to start practising the language", it's also true for
the original intended audience.

Morphology?  Sure, but not the whole grammar.

There are syntactic rules among the infamous sixteen (use of single
negatives, for instance), and there is some morphology not mentioned
in them (the so-called correlatives). But all this is really
nitpicking, the bulk of grammar is the same for all language anyway.

Jens S. Larsen wrote:
But languages are not discrete like that. Any kind of list
will be full of examples that are halfway in, halfway out.
Anyway, if you begin to list everyday concepts, that's the
first step in taking the everydayness away from them.

But I'm emphatically *not* talking about listing everyday
concepts. I'm telling you that a lot of them are partly based
on enumeration of elements familiar to the subject.

If you disagree that it is so, that's a different matter.

You spend your time doing this. You assume that reality can
be described by a small set of rules;
No, only a small subset of reality, and the set of rules is not
supposed to be small, but as small as possible.

The further detail you want, the more rules you'll need.

Smallness is a variable, not some magical property.

then you extend those in a way that seems consistent to you;
then you complain that reality doesn't behave according to
your extended rules.
Yes, and then I change, add or delete a rule and reiterate the
process to see if it works better. Normal procedure of
scientific theory-building.

No; you don't. You, JS Larsen, complain about reality, not
about your rules.

Care to give an example of reiteration?

In practice, what you're doing is trying to fit everything
into a simplistic model.
No, I'm not doing practice here. I'm doing theory.

Aren't we clever today.

I'm not expecting progress to come to an end anytime soon.

Then why do you complain about facts when they don't match
the theory? Why your constant bickering about whether facts
are really facts (cf. 'how do we know that german and english
are not the same language')?

You, on the other hand, presume that reality must be
inherently simple, so tweaking is really cruft only.
I'm not sure what "cruft" means,

You're allowed to consult a dictionary, you know.

but anyway I can't imagine how tweaking scientific theories
would be "only" something. Science can be utterly unimportant
at times, maybe even most of the time, but tweaking the
theoretic rules within a science is always a grave matter
for the relevant science itself.

Can't you make it any more epic?

Well, yours is a game most people just don't find that
interesting to play.
Sure, most people prefer crackpot theories.

I suppose the portion that don't won't find your models
crackpottish, rather irrelevant.

"dmitri" == dmitri mosier/iowa city, Iowa <drm969@gmail.com> writes:

"Jens" == Jens S Larsen <jens_s_larsen@yahoo.dk> writes:

Fuck off petey........
Jens> Estu iom �entila, dmitri.

Morphology? Sure, but not the whole grammar.

"Jens" == Jens S Larsen <jens_s_lar...@yahoo.dk> writes:

    >> Fuck off petey........
    Jens> Estu iom �entila, dmitri.

Esperantismistoj estas ne �entilaj, ĉu ne?

    >> Morphology?  Sure, but not the whole grammar.

    Jens> There are syntactic rules among the infamous sixteen (use of
    Jens> single negatives, for instance), and there is some
    Jens> morphology not mentioned in them (the so-called
    Jens> correlatives).  But all this is really nitpicking, the bulk
    Jens> of grammar is the same for all language anyway.

Really?  Which parts of the grammar is the same for all languages?

Articles?
Plural marking?
Tense marking?
Marking of the accusative?
Use of _pre_positions?
Flexible word order?
Wildly importing "international" words being acceptable?
Use of pronouns?
Marking of  the word  class with  the last letter  of words  (but with
exceptions)?

"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:

    Peter> Have you never noticed that English and Chinese grammar are
    Peter> remarkably similar?

But I know too many difference between them in the first place.

"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> writes:

"Jens" == Jens S Larsen <jens_s_lar...@yahoo.dk> writes:
Fuck off petey........
Jens> Estu iom �entila, dmitri.

Esperantismistoj estas ne �entilaj, ĉu ne?

Jens> But all this is really nitpicking, the bulk
Jens> of grammar is the same for all language anyway.

Really? Which parts of the grammar is the same for all
languages?

Articles?
Plural marking?
Tense marking?
Marking of the accusative?
Use of _pre_positions?
Flexible word order?

Wildly importing "international" words being acceptable?

Use of pronouns?

Marking of the word class with the last letter of words
(but with exceptions)?

"Jens" == Jens S Larsen <jens_s_lar...@yahoo.dk> writes:

    Jens> At least nouns and verbs are thoroughly universal classes of
    Jens> words,

And that's all that's universal.

That's a tricky one. Looking at European languages, you'd assume that
personal pronouns gain currency as the conjugation patterns loose the
distinction of person, but Chinese and Japanese tend to leave out
personal pronouns even if the verbs don't conjugate for person.
Personally I think it has something to do with specific rules for
moving the wh-words to the start of the sentence (as in most European
languages) or leaving them _in situ_ (which both Chinese and Japanese
seem rather consistent in doing).

"Jens" == Jens S Larsen <jens_s_larsen@yahoo.dk> writes:

Wildly importing "international" words being acceptable?

Use of pronouns?