Re: lojban as a programming language [was Re: [lojban] Lojban for lay programmers]

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

> Lee Daniel Crocker:
> >And I don't know whether or not Lojban will ever become a full-
> >fledge "human language". I hope so, but I fear that the fact that
> >it was designed utterly without regard to the hard-wired language
> >processing features of the human brain might make that difficult.
>
> >I'm not saying that was a bad decision: indeed, that's one of the
> >very purposes for which it was created: to see if it could help
> >discover such features. But cognitive science beat us to the
> >punch, and there is now no serious doubt that such features are
> >present, so Lojban's deviance from them is a problem for getting
> >it accepted as a common-use language.



So Chomsky 1, S-W 0. Is the game over?


-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.