From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sun Dec 6 05:16:08 1998 X-Digest-Num: 25 Message-ID: <44114.25.100.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:16:08 +0200 From: Robin Turner > * This attempt to specify meanings to the n-th degree is one feature that > makes Lojban hard for humans to use. Our mental apparatus is not designed > to recognise - at conversational pace - all of the distinctions in meaning > that Lojban offers. > IF, and I only say "if", language is supposed to echo human thought, > then I believe that the way Glosa realises the fuzziness in thinking is > closer to the neuro-linguistic truth than is the precision of Lojban. Quite possibly - I don't know enough about Glosa to judge. The principle in Lojban is that you can be as precise _or vague_ as you want to be. I admit that Lojban is harder to learn than most constructed languages, but it's still easier than most natlangs. I'm not sure how easy or difficult Lojban would be to process at a conversational speed, since I only ever communicate in Lojban by e-mail. What I imagine is that in conversation people would tend to ignore those features of Lojban which enhance precision, and utilise those which ease communication (e.g. the attitudinal indicators). -------------------------------------- > To me, Lojban is more of a lawyer's recipe for quibbling > whereas Glosa is the nice simple list of labels. > .oi zo'ope'i ganai la lojban ba ve tavla gi le flasmuni co'u jerna [ouch!] [humour-opinion] if Lojban [future] be-spoken the law-interpreter cease earn-money ---------------------------------- ta'o Does Lojban have any other word for lawyer? co'o mi'e robin.