From rob@twcny.rr.com Thu Aug 23 11:22:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 18:22:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 69512 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 18:22:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 18:22:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 18:22:11 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-40.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.40]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23475 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:22:09 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15Zz6z-0000GG-00 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:21:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:21:45 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: sts- [was: RE: [lojban] Brochure updates Message-ID: <20010823142145.A597@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9990 On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:44:02AM -0400, Craig wrote: > However, the typing difficulties may contribute. And when I first looked at > esperanto, I actually was a bit put off by the propaganda - which is not > always accurate, causing me to become frustrated. Esperanto is NOT totally > regular. It is NOT, as some claim, identical to my native language except > for the sixteen rules (and how they presume to know what my native language > is, I don't know). With lojban, the only false claim is that of total > unambiguity, which it took me long enough to realize wasn't completely true > that I had seen enough positives to outweigh it. Who claims that Lojban has total unambiguity? The brochure states that Lojban in unambiguous in terms of pronunciation, morphology, and grammar, and that this means "the person who reads or hears a Lojban sentence is never in doubt as to what words it contains or what roles they play in the sentence." This is true. Semantic ambiguity is necessary for a human language, however. Anyone who claims that Lojban has none hasn't used the language at all. Incidentally, about this topic - I don't think this is the right place to complain about Esperanto. It's good that most people can avoid seeing it as an "us vs. them" issue, so let's try to keep it that way. -- Rob Speer