Robin Turner wrote: > What makes Lojban difficult is its unfamiliarity - there are hardly any words > which are exatcly the same as a word in a natlang (though nearly all of them bear > some resemblance) and the grammar is like nothing else on earth (again with the > possible exception of Chinese). I don't think it is the vocabulary, and the grammar does not resemble Chinese as far as I can see. The difficulty is the argument structure of the verb; there isn't any. Instead there is a separately defined idiom for every predicate. Not even English verbs are quite that bad at being idiomatic instead of following regular patterns. As an example, the simple verb "to walk"; Lojban has: cadzu [ dzu ] walk x1 walks/strides/paces on surface x2 using limbs x3 (cf. stapa, bajra, klama, litru) So, "I walk road hand"?? I fail to see the logic in this. (Despite having worked in unix for 20 years, where "grep pattern file" makes sense.) A real language arranges verbs into relatively few categories of argument structure, transitive/intransitive/etc., and marks arguments using some kind of case system. Sorry to be negative, but Lojban isn't a realistic option.