From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 08 07:46:29 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:46:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1EkNyM-0005MR-Sa
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:46:19 -0800
Received: from manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr ([139.179.30.24])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54)
	id 1EkNyC-0005M0-E8
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:46:18 -0800
Received: by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix, from userid 72)
	id 9BDDF33DBE; Thu,  8 Dec 2005 17:46:04 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [139.179.97.195] (unknown [139.179.97.195])
	by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8988033A90
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Thu,  8 Dec 2005 17:46:04 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4398548F.9060504@bilkent.edu.tr>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:43:11 +0200
From: robin <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-7.1.20060mdk (X11/20050322)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: word order was logo
References: <20051206203757.9914.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200512061922.12024.phma@phma.hn.org>
In-Reply-To: <200512061922.12024.phma@phma.hn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 10853
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 December 2005 15:37, John E Clifford wrote:
> 
>>--- Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>What's the word order in Arabic, anyway?
>>
>>Good question.  Any at least tyros?
> 
> 
> IIRR Semitic was VSO, though SVO is fairly common in Hebrew.
> 
> As to Lojban word order, supposing it to have evolved from some Proto-Loglanic 
> language instead of being constructed, it appears to me to have been SOV, as 
> {naku} is easier to understand that way. Some verbs naturally make more sense 
> in an SSVO construction, such as {frica}.

I think one reason for having SVO as the default (rather than VSO, which 
is closer to predicate logic) is to allow the option of simulating 
pro-drop languages. Of course there are pro-drop SOV languages, but with 
no inflection, that could get very confusing.

robin.tr


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.