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.