Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: Lojban

xShadowSoulx ("xShadowSoulx" <shadowxsoul@...>) on November 6, 2010

i have personnaly studied lojban, and i find it to be a very bad choice for= an auxlang, mostly because of its grammar. i also never like the phonology= since it allows alot of bizarre consonant clusters.

it is astoundingly al= ien and takes up way too much memory to learn. there is no language on this= planet that relies solely on word order like lojban does to differentiate = gramatical case. the only cases where you see this, this is only used for t= he nominative and maybe the direct object (as in english).

however, there = is something similar you can do that can infact work, it was something i to= yed with while working on my own auxlang. it is a concept called ‘coverbs’ = that do exist in alot of languages. let me give an example:

let’s say we h= ad two sentences:

i am going to my home and

i am going from the store

in= a language that used coverbs, there would be no prepostion here. instead e= ach would use a seperate verb. so these sentences would look something like= :

i go-to home i go-from store

here’s the interesting part: if we wanted = to say the sentence “I am going to my home from the store”, we simple combi= ne the two sentences together like so:

i go-to home go-from store.

i beli= eve chinese does this, so maybe the chinese guy where-ever he is could deta= il it more.

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: Lojban - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.