Print

Print


la mayk.faris. cusku di'e
 
 
> Robin Turner wrote:
>
> > Michael Farris wrote: [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > > What the hell is Loglan/Lojban?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Loglan was an attempt to create a language with a completely logical
> >
> > > structure (while still maintaining West European linguistic cultural
> >
> > > categories) Lojban was the result of a split in the Loglan movement.
> >
> > I'm not sure about the original goals of Loglan, since I came in well
> > after
> > Lojban had been up and running.  However, it is certainly NOT a Lojban
> > goal to
> > maintain "West European cultural categories" - quite the opposite in
> > fact.  The
> > whole point of Lojban is that it tries to be as culturally neutral as
> > possible.
>
> Apologies, I was repeating something I had a long time ago in a
> linguistics seminar, it may or not be 100% true. Even if it was, it was
> more about Loglan than Lojban.
>
> The very little I remember looking at Loglan, I thought it was true, I'm
> not familiar with Lojban at all. The point made was the Loglan, despite
> the claims of the author (name? I forget) well anyway, despite claims he
> made that it was based on logic, still managed to include number
> (singular/plural) marking which is a West European linguistic/cultural
> category. If you start with no number marking and require some sort of
> quantifier to indicate approximate amounts (a little, a few, several) or
> exact amounts (one, fourteen, three hundred and seventeen) you can claim
> you're working outside of any language specific framework (yes some
> languages work like this, but for almost any choice you make _some_
> language will work like that). Namely this doesn't interfere or impose
> much purely grammatical structure. If I remember right, Loglan had
> unmarked singular nouns, to which some sort of plural marker was added.
> Worse, it had number agreement, so that some quantifiers required singular
> nouns and others required plural. This is all as Western biased as you can
> get.
> Confession: The above is a hypothetical example.  I'm not completely sure
> if this was how things worked in Loglan, all I remember for sure, was that
> I looked at it and was impressed by how _western_ it was. Not at all
> neutral, I'd say. Lojban well may be a different kettle of fish.
>
 
It is.  There is no compulsory marking for either number or tense - apart from
the basic function-argument structure, almost all the grammar of Lojban is
optional.  Thus "le prenu" is "the person/people"; "mi bajra" is "I
run/ran/will run/am running/have run"
 
[cut]
 
>
> >
> > Originally use as an IAL was pretty low down on Lojban's priorities,
> > in fact the
> > introductory blurb says that it is one of the few conlangs that does
> > not see
> > itself as in direct competition with Esperanto.  For most Lojbanists
> > it is, I
> > admit, mainly a hobby languag(edit)probably be an improvement not
> > only on
> > IALs, but also on natlangs.  It all depends on what you want to do
> > with a
> > language.
>
> Well the question seemed to be in an IAL frame. So I answered in an IAL
> frame, a smartass way of saying that it's pretty much a non-starter in
> that field. (So far)
 
I agree, but the same could be said for most IALs ;-)  I sometimes wonder if
paradoxically Lojban may stand a better chance of being adopted by some
specific international communities because of, rather than in spite of, its
complexity.  A bunch of philosophers or AI researchers might prefer Lojban
since:
 
(a) they probabaly know enough English for basic communication anyway;
(b) they are already familiar with formal languages (e.g. formal logic,
computer languages);
(c) they want something which is very precise and not too culturally weighted;
 
(d) they're the kind of perverse people who actually prefer things to be
difficult!
 
But you're right to the extent that if a body like the EU or the UN was
considering adopting an IAL for practical communication, Lojban would probably
be at the bottom of the list!
 
co'o mi'e robin.