From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:58:45 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 12001 invoked from network); 13 Dec 1996 03:52:31 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 13 Dec 1996 03:52:31 -0000 Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <6.E7D77534@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 4:52:28 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:48:11 -0600 Reply-To: Steven Belknap Sender: Lojban list From: Steven Belknap Subject: Re: Lojban's imperfections? To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 949 Lines: 19 Message-ID: > 1. In Lojban, why is the first argument of a predicate put before that > predicate? ... Shouldn't the predicate be first, and then its > arguments? The reason is historical. The default is SVO in lojban, because James Cooke Brown decided it ought be that way in Loglan (see the 1960 Scientific American article by Brown). Loglan was an early version of lojban. He did this for reasons that have never been particularly clear to me, but he might have had a good reason, and the language is flexible enough so it really doesn't matter very much. I would prefer to follow the predicate logic form where the predicate is initial (or equivalently, terminal). If you want, you can put the predicate at the beginning, at the cost of a fi. (Sorry, thats the best pun I can manage with my limited lojban) -Steven Steven Belknap, M.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria