From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 15:34:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 29 Jan 2002 23:34:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 99632 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2002 23:34:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2002 23:34:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.36) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2002 23:34:03 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:34:03 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.46 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:34:03 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: lojban as a programming language [was Re: [lojban] Lojban for lay programmers] Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:34:03 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2002 23:34:03.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FDF5EA0:01C1A91D] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.46] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13096 Lee Daniel Crocker: > > Is there any obvious deviation in Lojban from what is required > > for a common-use language? > >The only major one I can think of offhand is that human languages >overwhelmingly distinguish among nouns, verbs, and adjectives. "Overwhelmingly" suggests that some don't, right? I thought adjectives were not so universal. In any case, Lojban does distinguish selbri and sumti, isn't that about the same thing? >There >are probably a few minor hassles, like human languages generally >have number, especially among pronouns. Again, "generally" suggests exceptions, and so it can't be a strong objection. I can believe that there is something weird about Lojban pronouns though, especially third person ones. >Also, we don't have a gismu >for "pink", but we do have "cyan" and "magenta", suggesting that the >color system is designed around the physics of light rather than >around human perception (I personally like that fact). If it really is important that a language can't have words for "cyan" and "magenta" unless it has one for "pink", then cicna and nukni will drop out of use (or rather will never get into use) or a word for "pink" will be incorporated. There is nothing in Lojban to stop any of that from happening. It hardly sounds like a harbinger of failure. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com