xah lee wrote:
(i don't think lojban is ever suitable for human communication as with natural languages.Do you have any basis for that opinion?essentially that humans are not logical machines.... in any natural situation communication far outruns any logical concern... employing body language, context, situational... and perhaps the actual literal content in speech plays only some 10% of all thins communicated. In emergency, love affairs, power play, ... any situation... all these things are happening implicitly, even among you the reader and me right at this moment. The only exception is say idol chat among linguists inside sealed ivy towers (as the case of online lojban chat or in this forum.). so in natural settings, lojban will be broken as soon as it is used for real... just as people constant break English.
So your argument is that you don't think that "lojban is ever suitable for human communication as with natural languages" because people will break the rules just as they do for English. By that reasoning however, Russian, French and Chinese will never "be suitable for human communication", because people will break the rules just as they do for English. Either that, or you have to prove that Lojban is LESS suitable than the other languages for human communication when people DO break the rules, which might be true but would be hard to prove until we have fluent speakers facing the sorts of situation where unsuitability would occur. Lojban would not be a failure as a language merely because people do not always speak it flawlessly. I'm bothered when I see people setting a higher standard for Lojbanic success than they do for success of English. lojbab