negative opinions of Lojban: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Occasionally, some people will hear about Lojban, thinking that the concept sounds great, but when they look more closely at it, they come to the conclusion (for various reasons) that it is not quite what they expected.


The information on this page is largely superseded by [[jbocre: Lojbanic Forums|Lojbanic Forums]].
A few will go public on the mailing list and raise their concerns, but most will realize that the large scale language design isn't really up for discussion anymore, and they will just go on with their lives.


a.k.a. ''le [[jbocre: jboste|jboste]]'' or ''la jboste''.
Here are some opinions collected off the net:


Currently hosted at [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban] '' .i le lojbo mriste ca se judri zoigy. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban] gy.''
* Magnus Itland believes that a major failing of Lojban is that  [http://chaosnode.net/mar01/di010307.html it does not have completely orthogonal semantics].
 
* In a newsgroup thread about the precision of language, Kim G. S. Øyhus simply says that he has started to look into the languages Loglan and Lojban, but [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8erjtm%248f5%241%40kopp.stud.ntnu.no they turned out to be overrated].
Robin Powell runs an alternative, non-yahoo version at [http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/].
* If Lojban really is unambiguously parsable, why haven't anyone been able to prove it in all these years? (anonymous offline person)
 
The archives of the older Lojban mailing list ('89-'98) are available at [http://www.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban] '' .i le sorcu be le purci lojbo mriste ne la 1989nan. bi'o la 1998nan. cu se judri zoigy. [http://www.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban] gy.''
 
There is also a Lojban-language only mailing list: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jbosnu] '' .i lo lojbo bangu selsku steci mriste cu ji'a zasti gi'e se judri zoi gy. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jbosnu] gy.''
 
----
 
The mailing list was until now the only discussion forum for Lojban; as a result, it was easy to keep track of. This Wiki has usurped that function, and one Lojbanist ([[User:Bob LeChevalier|Bob LeChevalier]]) has expressed dismay at the bifurcation.
 
An etiquette question arises: should questions of usage be diverted to the mailing list? Should the mailing list be alerted when questions of usage arise? What about beginners' enquiries? What about traffic in the reverse direction?
 
''This is an online resource. It should be used as such. It should be improved as an online resource by posting major issues here. Since the list is still the primary discussion mode, or tries to be, questions '''should''' be asked there first. However, lojbab should support this wiki as it is the first evolution toward more naturalistic as opposed to perscriptionist lojban as it is not controlled by the [[jbocre: Lojban Cabal|Lojban Cabal]], and will allow lojban to grow as a language - not in size, but in wealth of language. Since it is hard for the LLG to monitor the Wiki and respond to everything, the wiki gives more control to the community - which I thought was considered a Good Thing. Let usage decide, even off-list usage.''
 
There aren't enough people that agree on anything to form a Cabal quorum! --xod
 
My inclination is to agree [[jbocre: with "This is an online resource" &c.]] My inclination is also to alert the list when significant issues of usage come up, which I have been attempting to do. Not to do so would, I think, be irresponsible to the language community as a whole. But inasmuch as the Wiki has seen both important metalanguage on Lojban, and --- arguably as important --- significant use of Lojban itself in squibs, it is decidedly a Good Thing. Even if not always an Enjoyable Thing. -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]].
 
P.S. Not that the Lojban Cabal controls the mailing list in any real sense. (If this subtopic sees responses, please create a new subtopic: [[jbocre: Lojban mailing list and the Lojban Cabal|Lojban mailing list and the Lojban Cabal]]. But I don't think it necessary.)
 
'''--> [[Beginning Mailing List|Beginning Mailing List]]''', wherein [[jbocre: Jay Kominek|Jay]] bitches and moans and makes but a single suggestion for all of his complaining.

Latest revision as of 14:22, 10 December 2016

Occasionally, some people will hear about Lojban, thinking that the concept sounds great, but when they look more closely at it, they come to the conclusion (for various reasons) that it is not quite what they expected.

A few will go public on the mailing list and raise their concerns, but most will realize that the large scale language design isn't really up for discussion anymore, and they will just go on with their lives.

Here are some opinions collected off the net:

  • Magnus Itland believes that a major failing of Lojban is that it does not have completely orthogonal semantics.
  • In a newsgroup thread about the precision of language, Kim G. S. Øyhus simply says that he has started to look into the languages Loglan and Lojban, but they turned out to be overrated.
  • If Lojban really is unambiguously parsable, why haven't anyone been able to prove it in all these years? (anonymous offline person)
Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=negative_opinions_of_Lojban&oldid=121391"