Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:33:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711090233.VAA18629@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: The design of Lojban X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710220153.VAA28108@cs.columbia.edu> (message from HACKER G N on Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:51:29 +1000) Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 948 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 8 21:33:25 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:51:29 +1000 >From: HACKER G N > >. Lojban forces a choice about whether or not to include the listener >in the "we" pronoun, and the only group of languages I know of that force >this same choice are the Melanesian languages of Papua New Guinea. Surely not that rare. Cherokee and Hawai'ian also force this. I shouldn't be surprised if it were quite common among Native American languages, and other language groups. (Frankly, I find it a little surprising it's not more common.) > It's >not obvious to me at all that Lojban is a superior method of communication >to English, especially given its appallingly small root vocabulary. And I >don't believe for one second that it has done anything whatsoever to >improve my thinking - but at least it hasn't hindered it! I don't think anyone was ever claiming superiority or inferiority. No need to get competitive... ~mark