On 9/3/2014 11:44 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote:
> Yup! If your goal isn't monoparsing, you have no
reason to be
> interested in Lojban/Loglan. If your goal is monoparsing, Lojan/Loglan
> may be the only living option but its success is not proven and, even if
> it were, it does just about everything in the worst possible way.
>
> Let's see how that line of objections, rather than ones to the
> cosmetics, can be met and turned into a positive discussion of Lojban.
I think that there are a few more reasons, though most of them are not
phrased in academic terms. Certainly, people have BECOME interested in
Lojban for other reasons and have found their interest to be sustained,
even as they learned that Lojban isn't hardly a perfect design.
Objections to Lojban should be separated into critiques of the language
design as a fulfillment of its academic goals, and critiques of the
design pertaining to its learnability and/or aesthetics.
Since the goal is to produce something
that can be linked to by a wiki
article, I suggest creating a page in the Lojban wiki that addresses
these criticisms and organizes them in a list (with rebuttals as
appropriate).
lojbab
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to
lojban@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.