tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 30 10:51:01 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The FAQ section 3.5 -- charghwI' !?!
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't lojban supposed to be unambiguous
> and completely *in*telligible?
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
The last time I read the Lojban FAQ on the WWW, they were boasting that
they think they have *one* member fluent in Lojban (by which I guess they
mean no one else can understand them).
Lojban is supposed to be *logically* unambiguous, but by this they mean
formal, mathematical logic. It's a far cry from the way people actually
speak. Lojban seems to break language down into its
constituent elements, but humans are accustomed to using shortcuts that
combine these elements. It's very hard (for me, anyway) to do that sort
of linguistic analysis on the fly.
Actually, another problem with Lojban is that every single word has its
unique pattern of predicates that can be used with it. It makes for a
very difficult vocabulary: not only must you learn themeanings of
thewords, but also the other words that can accompany it and their proper
pattern. (Ironically, not unlike what charghwI' is asking us to do with
{jatlh}, et al.)
-- ter'eS