This is an important point. If you restrict the set of candidate languages only to living ones (i.e. with speaker community), then despite its many faults Lojban is patently the best choice if you want what you aptly term "monoparsing".
More generally, most of the PR claims for Lojban are valid if and only if the set of candidate languages is restricted to living languages. (Which restriction is not unreasonable.)
--And.
--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.On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 3:04 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 1, 2014 4:07:03 AM UTC-4, la gleki wrote:
> the wikipedia article about lojban might need a short list of
> criticism of lojban with links (e.g. to posts in this mailing list).
> Balanced criticism actually makes languages more popular, so it's
> advisable to make such a list.
Lojban's greatest success is this:
1. The founders of Lojban set themselves the absolutely overriding goal of creating a version of Loglan that is stable and has a community of users. This goal was achieved.
My main criticisms of Loglan/Lojban are:
2. Even if being a Whorfian experiment -- as Loglan not very credibly purported to be -- were of academic interest, the experiment design was so poor as to render it an utter failure as an experiment.
3. Even relative to the compartively simple task of creating a logical language, Lojban does an exceptionally poor job. There are no formal rules that map a sentence's phonological form to its logical form, and to a large but very slowly diminishing extent there are no informal rules that do that either. There are ways to unambiguously encode logical forms in Lojban sentences, but these are clunky, verbose and unergonomic (and therefore largely unused); and anybody giving the problem twenty minutes' thought could have come up with a better design than Lojban's.
4. The morphosyntax of Lojban is full of unnecessary baroque complexity -- the proliferations of allomorphy, word-classes, constructions, function words could also be very drastically simplified.
5. Goal (1) is not a very interesting goal: having a stable language with a community of users is interesting only if the language itself is worthy of being a stable language with a community of users. Criticisms (2) and, in my view, particularly (3) and (4) mean the language itself isn't worthy of being a stable language with a community of users. That is, there are no reasons why it is a Good Thing to learn and use Lojban; any attempt to persuade people otherwise would in my view by deluded or dishonest. (A "Good Thing" is something more than just "whatever floats your boat".)
I've written at length about (3) and (4) elsewhere, on Lojban and Conlang lists.
--And.
--
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.
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.