DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=Z9zrNidrh6KYXCEplLksvW+ZkqaTBX8quO7SLduQOXLbEn8w3/yrMcFXG+RZNiUubAyhrmktrv3nfcXzneiJC8krvUuhSVCiXGqKvmGSAq1q1nlNrvYIjmT9XgOyY44Ba7jKGxGTZDCVuFkqAEcW/lDynBbYqTBRe8456siGiSc=
Message-ID: <8f2fd4aa050905225618ddfb03@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:56:12 -0700
From: Brandon Wirick <brandon@yrick.com>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: On Constructed Languages
In-Reply-To: <H00061428eec6727.1125929066.seurat.artisan.calpoly.edu@MHS>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <H00061428eec6727.1125929066.seurat.artisan.calpoly.edu@MHS>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 2109

coi.nei,omis.

Since I was eleven years old I have developed a disdain for English.
It's such a bloated dump of random thought patterns, and yet people
seem to believe that, accompanied by good enough literary skills, it
can be the right tool for technical communication, even
internationally.

I decided that I was going to make my own language. My friends and
family looked at me with incredulity as I described a language based
on math and logic, where things made sense from the ground up, and
there was no amalgam of obsolete cultures to speak of.

Over the last ten years I had been slowly gathering my thoughts. I
started writing parts of the language, but realized that it would be a
horridly large project and began to despair. Just this February,
though, I tripped over a reference to Lojban in a Wikipedia entry and
the despair went away, praise {la jegvon.}! True, the alphabet is
still Roman and the {cmavo} are a bit arbitrary, but I never would
have been able to come up with something a tenth as practical or half
as elegant. And yeah, good luck trying to find a better logical human
language.

I used to care about Esperanto, but suddenly it has lost all
significance to me. Non-logical languages are really only good for
sounding pretty or powerful, and if they don't, where's the appeal?

mu'omi'e.uirik.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: alien.juxtaposition@gmail.com
> To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:00:30 +1000
> Subject: [lojban-beginners] On Constructed Languages
> Heyaz
> Excuse me if I sound n00bish but only since my learning of Lojban have I
> taken notice of the wonderful world of contructed languages....Esperanto,
> Ido, Glosa, Novial etc........ I am frankly amazed at the amount of
> languages; it really is fascinating, although I am not what I would consider
> a 'hardcore' linguist or anything of the kind. What do you Lojbanists think
> of the other artificial languages? What made you get into Lojban, not the
> easier, more mainstream Esperanto? Do any of you speak in other constructed
> languages?
> 
> mi'e .nei,omis.