[lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was: RE: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

> 2.  It fills in the gaps in the language design so that we have a complete
> language that can be learned as a language for experimental
> purposes.  JCB's original "engineering" was so incomplete, that he reported
> that the users could not use it - it sort of just "rattled around in their
> brains" - there was not enough flesh on the design for the language to be
> spoken.  We'e spent 40 years since then adding additional design so that it
> no longer rattles.  But it seems impossible to construct a complete
> language, so at some point usage has to fill in the gaps.



Interesting idea. What is a complete language? How can tell detect
completion?



> We cannot expect more than incidental mention of Lojban until we get people
> willing to spend money and time doing Lojban research at more than the
> hobbyist level.  We're also unlikely to get any major research results from
> the language so long as it wholly a spare time endeavor. The incidental
> mentions we've been getting serve to establish credibility that warrants
> serious expenditure, but is not the end in itself.



What if hobbyists could achieve L1 fluency?




-- 
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that
act of terrorism.  Why would that event change the situation?
                                                      -- Howard Zinn