Gleki,
First of all, my intent was not to offense anyone. But it seems, from your answer, that you were a bit... annoyed? Irritated?? Indeed, defining Lojban by "Lojban 1987" is a bit light, IMHO! I understand you'd like to avoid drifting much from the 1987 definition. But this definition is even not clear to me (hence the summary)!
Well, I was just trying to sum up things with a twofold goal: make it clear (to myself, to anyone not "expert"), and establish a kind of base rules to highlight what may NOT go in evolutions of Lojban (which brings me to the next point below...).
Just to make it clear: are you against evolving Lojban or not? I guess no, but I'm asking because your short answer may be (mis)interpreted as "I want Lojban to be forever what it was in 1987". Personally, I feel like engraving a standard into stone is not a good idea. I bet the best that can happen is evolution in a very "controlled" and "well thought" way; that is to say not "anyone making forks in any direction", and not "merging ideas 'as they come' into the standard" (such as "macarena" words... What a bad joke!).
About your answer: you're right, most languages are machine parsable. But:
1. I was talking about Lojban only.
2. This doesn't make other languages "non ambiguous" (in grammar).
I personally like Lojban because it is so unique: compared to languages I speak, it removes a whole burden of exceptions, ambiguities, and weird stuff. Well, all of these particularities also make those natural langues unique, but not in the way it would help learning them.
As for cultural neutrality, yes, it is indeed discutable. Maybe this would be moved to the "desirable" section? But as many pointed out, and despite the fact gismu used some natural languages as sources, Lojban sounds/looks like no other. And there is no emphasis on any culture, right? Maybe only some biases from time to time (to fix?). From my point of view, this is where it differentiates from Esparanto, which is closely related to Latin languages (I don't talk Esperanto, so correct me if I'm wrong).
"Auxiliary language" may come with the previous point, too.
Cheers,
la .sykynder.
Le vendredi 10 novembre 2017 07:44:12 UTC+1, Gleki Arxokuna a écrit :
2017-11-09 23:48 GMT+03:00
<suke...@gmail.com>:
YES!
- Non-ambiguous grammar (~= monoparsing, machine parsable)
English is also machine parsable. See Stanford parser and many more.
- Unicity (~= forks are experiments or proposals)
so are many constructed languages including programming ones.
The list of core verbs (gismu) was borrowed from TLI Loglan and there from the list of core concepts in major European language. Cultural neutrality?
- Rather stable ("rather" has to be refined)
- Usable (speakable, learnable, writable, readable...)
- Usage defines the language, as long as these "basics" are untouched.
- However the "usage" is rather a blurry situation for now...
I have an alternative definition of what is Lojban:
* Lojban is a language called Lojban and created in 1987.
Yes!
* named "Lojban"
* created in 1987
No!
* named "English"
* doesn't yet have a single word for "to dance Macarena"
NO!
- Immutable base grammar, and immutable base vocabulary (cmavo, important gismu...)
- Targeted to be TOTALLY based on logic
- Ideal (or "perfect") language (la .pycyn. pointed out that issue)
Maybe desirable, but impossible
- Backward-compatibility of versions (added after what la .timoteios. said)
- Fully formal and complete grammar (as Gleki and And Rosta said)
- Keep strictly what original designers wanted (because they could not foresee all potential issues)
They also wanted it to be an international auxiliary language, btw.