|
On Friday 26 September 2008 17:52:02 komfo,amonan wrote: > I've always thought that the claim "Lojban is simple compared to natural > languages; it is easy to learn" is pretty far from true. I'm not sure of > the basis for the claim. I would think that a language's ease of learning > was predicated upon nearness to one's mother tongue. English speakers > probably find German easier to learn than Japanese. But do English speakers > find German easier to learn than Lojban? Probably some do and some don't. I > guess the claim is too definitive to be true IMHO. > In any event, I don't think that ease of learning is a major part of > Lojban's appeal. To me, the learning is a major turn-on. Lojban is just so damn interesting that I cannot stop reading in the CLL habitually... Learning English for instance.. I can hardly concentrate on learning it consciously; it's just random and thus boring. I, like 98% approximately, learn it by doing. So the information the language holds makes up for it's stupidity in a way.. What makes Lojban so interesting? I guess it's (among other things) the "speakable logic" idea, and the general structure (which reflects thought [as every language's structure does..]), often offering you new insight into the structure of thought itself. Though, I think these points are not that attractive to everyone. mu'o mi'e nam |