Honestly, we both speak European languages. That's why our opinion means nothing as we can't remove our cultural bias.
We need someone from another culture (like Navajo speaker).
Speaking about me as another participant in this conversation, my mother tongue is Finnish, which isn't an Indo-European language, and I used to know Japanese pretty well, another non-European language. These two languages differ greatly from each other, even ignoring the writing systems, but in principle English is for me just as alien and different as Japanese. Finnish culture has, of course, during the last few centuries been greatly affected by the general European culture and lately especially by Anglo-American culture, but this hasn't too much affected the basic structure of the language. Personally I'm reasonably fluent (at least in reading) in three Indo-European languages, i.e., Swedish, German and English, and have also studied Russian and French, which gives me a rather good grasp of the differences between my mother tongue and a variety of European languages, between the fundamental distinctions these languages make. Finnish doesn't make a gender distinction, definite/indefinite distinction is rather tricky to express in a proper, native way, and part/total distinction is perhaps the most essential and for foreigners the hardest to learn distinction affecting even our approach to basic quantification. The old, aboriginal Finnish culture was quite animistic, but this didn't affect the set of pronouns available, which, however, didn't limit our ability to express everything deemed necessary within that culture.
No language can in a natural way express every fine shade of meaning some other language can, not at the level of grammar, not at the level of native vocabulary, not at the level of inherited cultural understanding, not at a level every user of the language can fully grasp. Every translation from one language to another has to bridge a gap, sometimes a narrow one, sometimes an almost impossibly wide one. Considered against the overall background of natural languages, a constructed language always represents, of needs, a set of more or less arbitrary choices made by the developers, choices giving the language its distinct flavor. Most constructed languages have tried to be as natural as possible, just trying to remove some perceived "weaknesses" of some arbitrary set of natural languages or trying to be as easy to learn as possible. OTOH, Loglan/Lojban was intentionally designed to be in a way as different as possible, and thus more weight has been given to being able to express naturally some things and ideas awkward to express either in the natural languages in general or in the Indo-European languages familiar to the developers in particular -- the keyword here is "some" as the total set of possible features is way too large. Lojban, like every language, will always have limitations, and more important than being able to express things the way they are expressed in other languages is to develop a native idiomatic way of _expression_ using the existing machinery with all its possibilities and native implications. The time for any extension comes when it is felt that something important enough and frequent enough cannot be expressed simply enough in the world that is then.
mu'o mi'e veion
--