Re: Comparison of philosophical languages
From: | And Rosta <a.rosta@...> |
Date: | Friday, January 17, 2003, 1:08 |
My impressions were that the language had nothing to make it
stand out from the ordinary. But perhaps the extravagant claims
made for it made me overhasty in my judgement, since experience
teaches that usually when claims are made about the superiority
of one conlang over another, the claims teach us nothing save
not to trust the judgement of the person making the claim. If
if the person making the claim is the person who invented the
language, one's natural inclination is to suppose that the
language too was founded on naive judgement.
Unfortunately, because artificial languages have for so long
been the province of ungifted amateurs, they were long held
in thoroughly deserved contempt by the world of linguistic
scholarship. The same goes for the study of etymology and
distant genetic relations between languages, except things
are a little less dire here, because the maniacal attentions
of the ungifted amateur are mitigated by a core of genuine
scholarship.
> Lojban words are difficult to pronounce because they have
> consonant clusters. There are 1350 Lojban root words. The
> root words have at least two forms which are 5 letters long
> and 4 letters long. Some root words also have a 3 letter
> long form. Compound words, which are called lujvo are
> unpopular because they are very long. There is no dictionary
> of the compound Lojban words and some Lojbanists question
> the need for the dictionary. Web description:
>
http://www.lojban.org/sitemap.html
Far be it from me to defend the design principles of Lojban
morphology; they are indefensible. But the consonant clusters
need not be pronounced as consonant cluster, so cannot be
called difficult to pronounce.
--And.