From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Sep 24 23:51:46 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GRkJI-0006g9-SE for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:51:24 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GRkJI-0006g2-1M for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:51:24 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id i49so2012400pyi for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:51:23 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole:message-id; b=PBjIovYH8YMDkkSuXz4KPtUKyFvRM0KeazggTQBCobup/7d1q/BdGls9MvBdOnENREHUDbErXsbFLF6Cjax6qbH/34XnpmwUJeupY0O8CjCBixNBTN6lLoNn7ALFz/7ZJlXhBhvtJROph+QooFdEFrafTtxwfJzKYuICmRF3RUk= Received: by 10.65.234.2 with SMTP id l2mr588194qbr; Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blackbeast ( [67.165.223.114]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id f14sm1963003qba.2006.09.24.23.51.22; Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:51:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "M@" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: my opinion on why lojban isn't specifically well suited for human-computer interaction.1 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:52:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <87slig32ev.fsf@gmail.com> Thread-Index: AcbgaU3p+e0D8//7Qj+QtHXUi8r3pAAAixZA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Message-ID: <45177c6a.2116e5c9.0195.ffffb80c@mx.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 12627 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matthew.dunlap@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list First and foremost I'm not qualified whatsoever to talk about this, as I am searching for these types of answers myself. That said, here's my take on this specific case. Spanish stands alone because it has evolved into an independent entity in exactly the same way that species of animal can split off from one another if they are separated for a long enough period of time. Additionally, codes can be abstracted, languages cannot (or at least none that are coming to mind can). I could speak lojban in Morse Code, or Spanish in Morse Code (if I could speak Spanish that is). I can't imagine pig latin would work very well applied to Spanish, but conceptually there is no barrier with the idea. Do you mean to suggest that Latin grammar is the same as Spanish grammar (I don't know one way or the other)? --M@ > -----Original Message----- > From: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org] > On Behalf Of Timothy Hobbs > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:07 AM > To: lojban-list@lojban.org > Subject: [lojban] Re: my opinion on why lojban isn't specifically well > suited for human-computer interaction.1 > > if all Spanish words were regularly modified Latin words, instead of just > most. would Spanish not be a language but a code. does the fact that > Spanish imports a class libraries of words from 3rd party languages (that > is, other than Latin...) make it a language and not an code for speaking > Latin? would that make Morse code come under the same category as > Spanish, since it has its own unique set of acronyms and words related to > communicating accurately? > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.