Amazon.com Widgets

Should everyone adopt a logically-constructed language such as lojban?

  • Yes, everyone should speak more than one language.

    As Goethe said: "He who knows nothing of other languages knows nothing of his own."
    As a translator, I very much enjoy trying to communicate concepts etc. into another language. When I do succeed, it feels like a gift.
    However, why was Esperanto abandoned, why didn't it succeed?
    Why try to have another artificial language, and why not work on Esperanto's weaknesses and improve something that is already there?
    Also, I do think that languages have to grow organically to a certain extent, ie. Lojban seems sort of Genetically Modified, vs. Organically Grown.... ;-P

  • Computers could do much more with a parsable grammar.

    Yes. It shouldn't replace natural language, but having a universal secondary language with a parsable grammar would be wonderful; especially on the internet.

    You could have completely accurate grammar checks, and extremely accurate spelling checks. You could have online forums with zero grammatical mistakes. Machine Learning applications that work with blobs of text could be much stronger.

  • Logical languages make communication clear.

    Plenty of suffering has occurred due to misunderstood and ambiguous communication. While a logical language should by no means be a forced universal auxiliary language, it should certainly be better supported than the current state of "not at all"; a properly designed logical language would be beneficial to all people and might well become a universal auxiliary language on its own. Further - the current standard of English is rather unfair to the vast majority of people who do not speak it, and thus suffer economic penalties due to an accident of history. A universally comprehensible but nowhere native language would provide a level playing field to all peoples, and the logicality of the language resulting in communication able to be unambiguous, the cultural neutrality, and the lack of structurally sexist , racist, etc. language would provide an advantage over languages like Esperanto.

  • Yes if they want.

    Everyone should adopt logically constructed languages as long as that is something they want to do. If it is easy to learn than it would be good to encourage them to further learn more about the language and do their best but I do not think it should be a mandatory thing.

  • Yes, everyone should speak more than one language.

    As Goethe said: "He who knows nothing of other languages knows nothing of his own."
    As a translator, I very much enjoy trying to communicate concepts etc. into another language. When I do succeed, it feels like a gift.
    However, why was Esperanto abandoned, why didn't it succeed?
    Why try to have another artificial language, and why not work on Esperanto's weaknesses and improve something that is already there?
    Also, I do think that languages have to grow organically to a certain extent, ie. Lojban seems sort of Genetically Modified, vs. Organically Grown.... ;-P

  • They should not.

    Everyone should not adopt a logically constructed language such as lojban. This would take way to long, and people would resist it at every turn. It would be better if we just let language evolve on its own. If you let it evolve on its own, it will make a better language.

  • Language Is Part Of Our Culture

    To be honest, I have never heard of this and had to go look it up. While the idea of lojban sounds very simple and is probably very logical, people would have a problem with it. They like their culture to much and it would pain them to top speaking their language, just so everyone could understand them,.I think some people do not like being understood anyway. What you could do, is take the very slow process of breaking it in a little at a time to young people. That is the only way I can see it working.

  • Language is an art.

    No, not everyone should adopt a logically constructed language such as lojban, because we communicate just fine without an artificial language. Humans have communicated well for thousands of years using languages that have developed organically. Languages are interesting to study. There is no reason to switch to logically constructed languages such as lojban.

  • If they want to, let them torture themselves

    I'll be happy once every country implements an international auxiliary language into the education system. Then people will decide if they even want to communicate globally with others. But why should I learn Mandarin if I only can express ideas with a billion more people? Why should I learn Ido if I can only express ideas with any other students who bothered to learn grammar for ANOTHER language?

  • No, language is not logic

    Lojban is a neat language, no doubt about it, but it's a language designed as an experiment, not a language designed on any sound linguistic principle. Its goals of unambiguity, simplicity, and being exception-free are intriguing, but there's no scientific reason to think meeting these goals will make a language better for human use. Any claims of that nature are based purely on uninformed speculation and outright misunderstandings (such as assuming a strong Sapir-Whorf effect, and mistakenly assuming language works like mathematics) about the way language has been shown to work. So no, there's no reason beyond personal fulfilment to use lojban.

  • Logical languages make communication clear.

    Plenty of suffering has occurred due to misunderstood and ambiguous communication. While a logical language should by no means be a forced universal auxiliary language, it should certainly be better supported than the current state of "not at all"; a properly designed logical language would be beneficial to all people and might well become a universal auxiliary language on its own. Further - the current standard of English is rather unfair to the vast majority of people who do not speak it, and thus suffer economic penalties due to an accident of history. A universally comprehensible but nowhere native language would provide a level playing field to all peoples, and the logicality of the language resulting in communication able to be unambiguous, the cultural neutrality, and the lack of structurally sexist , racist, etc. language would provide an advantage over languages like Esperanto.

  • No they shouldn't.

    I do not believe that everyone should adopt a logically-constructed language such as lojban. There have been several attempts at creating a universal language and it has never worked. I think that having a variety of languages that are spoken freely is a good thing. It helps people see things from different points of view.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MasturDbtor says2014-10-26T18:42:19.263
Is lojban a strong or weak ftr language? What I mean is for example English is strong ftr because it requires you to explicitly express that you are talking about the future with "will" whereas German is weak ftr because while it has a word for will/to become it isn't used nearly as much.

Linguists have found that weak ftr languages lead to less temporal discounting meaning you take into account the future more. Any universal language should be a weak ftr language to encourage people to think about the future instead of ignoring it so much. If Lojban fits the bill then it may be the best language. Even if it does there's bound to be other considerations to be made. With the science of linguistics it's possible that the best possible language for its effects on cognition could be designed.