Talk:Lojban

message: how is it possible to translate Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland into a language which has an aim to eliminate ambiguity in lexis and grammar?
:that's the reason artificial languages are so successful... or aren't they?
no they aren't LOL.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.83.180.2 (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alice In Wonderland

message: I've got the following from the on-line Reference Grammar, Chapter 3, Section 3, eighth paragraph:
:"It is always legal to use the apostrophe (IPA [h]) sound in pronouncing a comma."
-- Dissident (Talk) 18:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I discussed it with the author of that book, and he says it should probably be considered an erratum. I'll keep this talk page apprised on any further developments.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The glottal stop is reserved for the . character, as an alternative to an outright pause. Jozis. (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "Apostrophe" and "comma" refer to very different things in this context. Apostrophe (') and comma (,). Apostrophe can be pronounced as any unvoiced fricative that isn't already the sound of some other letter—you wouldn't want it to be the same sound as "f" or "s", for example. The glottal stop is one of the valid pronunciations for "." and, therefore, it is not correct to use the same sound for the apostrophe.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronouncing the comma

message: "All brivla, except for a handful of borrowings such as alga, have at least five letters." 
The five letter rule is about the subcategory of gismu, alga is clearly a fu'ivla. 
Codegrinder 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely fu'ivla are a type (albeit a rare one) of brivla? Jozis. (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brivla

message: It is uggly! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? --Mednak 11:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current Latin orthography of Lojban is indeed somewhat jarring, due to the non-standard use of the full stop, the comma and capital letters. I feel that this needs to be addressed by the Lojban community.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozis. (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for not killing me. In the Swedish wikipedia I would have been dead by now. Beware of their smiling faces, any misstep, and You're dead! Said: Rursus (☻) 10:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh my!! 

message: :A dedicated Lojban popup dictionary as a Firefox add-on has been suggested, but is still in the level of speculation as the present lexing and parsing system of Lojban does not cover JavaScript.
I'm not familiar with Lojban, but this sentence seems very odd. It seems to be saying that the reason a specialised Lojban dictionary add-on cannot be made is because there are no JavaScript-based parsing tools for Lojban. Actually that's a guess; taking it at face value it seems to be saying the opposite - that Lojban can't parse JavaScript.
On top of that confusion, I've never heard of a dictionary that does anything more complicated than conjugate or decline words into their possible lemmas, so why would a lack of parsing libraries stop development of a dictionary?--holizz 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox add-on 

message: The archives of the conversations are now accesible in two versions: one for the original, unedited format, and another for an organized collection enabling easier topical reference. The latter will be updated as a new discussion on this page is concluded or becomes inactive. --Mednak 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Webcomic "xkcd" did a strip on Lojban - http://xkcd.com/191/
The title tag of the image (viewable by hovering the mouse over it) reveals the phrase "zo'o ta jitfa .i .e'o xu do pendo mi".
I have not the slightest idea what this means. 58.7.212.229 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Section addition 

message: Given that there's a series of articles for Esperanto, including Esperanto as an international language, Esperanto vocabulary, and Esperanto and Ido compared, should similar articles be made for Lojban? 69.80.147.216 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it can be compared to other languages other than log-langs, and there are comparissions in this article, but they would be a stub by themselves  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.156.71 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series of Lojban articles? 

message: Has anyone considered adding an entry for Commons:Babel?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erth64net (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding entry for [[Commons:Babel]] 

message: Photograph actually can be produced by using kacmyxra (obtained from Lojban's site) or by using the phrase ¨(the photo) PIXRA (of ---) (took by ---) LE KACMA. Of course, neither PIXRA nor KACMA may be capitalized  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.156.71 (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pixra's photograph/illustration merging 

message: * "Lojban is rather defined by the phonemes (spoken form of words)" (Orthography)
* "The sounds may be allophoned." (Phonology)
These sentences show serious misunderstanding of the meaning and usage of these linguistic terms. --Thnidu (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both passages are wrong on usage but correct on intended sense. The first passage is saying that Lojban has no single correct orthography—any orthography that unambiguously represents the underlying morphemes is equally correct. The latter is saying that the Lojban phonemes include a nontrivial number of allophones. Both of these assertions are correct. They should be reworded.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  phoneme, allophone 

message: "Some unique Lojbanic expressions", couldn't that be called "Lojbanisms" by the current rules of English? Said: Rursus (☻) 10:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lojbanisms"?

message: Although Lojban could be used as an auxiliary language, that is neither its main intent nor its proper classification. So why is section five entitled "Comparison with other auxiliary languages"? Should it not be "Comparison with other constructed languages"? I am going to go ahead and change this. --n-k, 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're fixing this, I've refined it to "Comparison with other logical languages", since (unless I've overlooked something) all of the languages it's compared to are loglangs.  Pi zero (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auxiliary? 

message: Section 4.1 contains a list of links which probably belong in the external links section. Should they be moved? --N-k, 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge section 4.1 and external links? 

message: I noticed that there is no comparison with Ilaksh. Is there anyone here with the knowledge to compare the two?AndreasBWagner (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Ilaksh 

message: I see that in the first sentence of this article, the words "predicate logic" link to an article about "First-order logic". As there is also an article about predicate logic, to which article should the link most appropriately link? If the current link is best, shouldn't the words on which the user clicks then be changed from "predicate logic" to "first-order logic"?--~ ~ :  Lincoln Cooper : ~  ~ (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicate Logic or First-order Logic 

message: It is stated here that the preferred allophonic pronunciation of the grapheme ⟨e⟩ is [e] and the secondary pronunciation is [ε]. Any version of The Comlete Lojban Language (or rather the Lojban Reference Grammar) states that it is the other way round with IPA:[ε] X-SAMPA:[E] being the preferred one.
Can anyone clarify this? Buriaku (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of ⟨e⟩ 

message: I see that stress normally falls on the penultimate syllable, ok. But what happens with monosyllabic words? Are they stress-less, sounding like if they were part of the following word? Or they are exceptionally stressed? Please put it clear, and we will be able to pronounce Lojban. --Xabadiar (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Stress is obligatory and penultimate in content-type words (brivla), the equivalent of verbs, nouns, and adjectives. For particles, which can be polysyllabic, stress can be placed on any syllable, except that the final syllable before a word with obligatory stress must itself be unstressed. So, if I say {lo mikce cu glico gi'e na'e merko}, then the syllables mik-, gli-, and mer- must receive stress, and the syllables gi'e na may be stressed according to the speaker's preference, but the other syllables must not be stressed.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. So it seems that monosyllabic words are normally stress-less, sounding like if they were part of the following word. Actually this seems to be the norm in natural languages: "he's from Italy" will sound "hes fromitaly".--Xabadiar (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. One of the reasons that Lojban has a specific stress pattern is that it avoids the need to have clear breaks between words. Lojban words can be run together as if they were one word without becoming ambiguous unless there is hiatus of two vowels or in the case of proper names. Monosyllables can be stressed if found in some positions, but in practice they do often appear immediately before brivla, in which case they must be unstressed.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stress 

message: [11] points to reference item 11.
[14] points to reference item 12.
I have no idea why.
ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References are broken 

message: If the language has no genuine problems, and no perceived problems, why aren't we all rushing to learn it? If it does have genuine or perceived problems, why don't we have a Criticism section? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't we need a criticism section? 

message: These three conlangs have a minuscule representation on the web. Do we need them here? I removed links to them since it is unlikely they will get there articles but may be remove these sections completely? mw.lojban.org wiki (mediawiki engine) can store them if someone is afraid of losing this content.Gleki.arxokuna (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lojsk, Voksigid, gua\spi 

message: The translation used used incorrect Lojban. I replaced it with a newer one from the website. Gleki.arxokuna (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The North Wind and the Sun 

message: Given that the reference grammar is the only description of the language links are needed to explain that Lojban is " based on predicate logic". Until then restoring this assertion isn't desirable.Gleki.arxokuna (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is it based on predicate logic? 

message: * I deleted this paragraph: "Lojbanic expressions are modular; smaller constructs of words are assembled into larger phrases so that all incorporating pieces manifest as a possible grammatical unity. This mechanism allows for simple yet infinitely powerful phrasings; "a more complex phrase can be placed inside a simple structure, which in turn can be used in another instance of the complex phrase structure"." I don't how Lojban is different from other languages. Maybe add something on peculiarities of its syntax in regard to this modularity? Gleki.arxokuna (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  modular structure of lojban expressions? 

message: The Lojban Wikipedia is utterly inactive, and their homepage seems quite moribund. The last "news" item is from January (see right side bar), the "article of the month" template for November 2017 is empty (to say nothing of the fact that it is already December) and the recent changes for the last 30 (!!) days only show a few nearly meaningless contributions by exactly one user. There are a lot of inactive Wikipedias, but if even the official website is inactive, can't we conclude that the entire movement is dead or dormant? Of course there is a real world in addition to the world on-line. But this language relies so much on the Internet for its dissemination that it would certainly leave traces if it still lived to any extent. Even Volapük seems to be more active... Steinbach (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/ are the "traces" that prove it still lives on in the form of chats. Reonic (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If a community still uses IRC by 2017, it's probably not very vibrant or getting new members, but fair enough, Lojban is being used actively. And apart from that? Any promotional activities? Any original or translated literature coming out? It used to be that way... Steinbach (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Lojban has been using mostly chats for a long time and has hardly been a literary language ever. What do you suggest to add to the Wikipedia page in regard to this? As for IRC currently there is a synchronizing bridge relay between Telegram, Slack, Gitter, Discord and IRC. Different Lojbanists thus use different sides of the bridge. The front age of mw.lojban.org has links to them (in fact it's in the top part of the front page). I'm not aware of any large texts coming out since almost no one is interested in that (indeed, what for?). The activity that interested me right now is creating a high-quality parallel corpus of Lojban and English phrases that can be later used for tutorials and machine translation. However, none of this seems relevant to this very Wikipedia page. Gleki.arxokuna (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the page include at least something about what happened during the last 15 years. This can be waning interest, or a shift to chatting, or whatever. The History section currently stops at 2002. This made me curious, and after a quick search revealed very little activity. Btw, I do have my ideas what good longer texts in Lojban might be, or why the website could look a little more up to date, but since Wikipedia is not a forum, these are not very relevant here. Steinbach (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The story of Lojban in some way ended in 2003 since this is the year when the "freeze" period was over as the Logical Language Group backdated in its statement in 2002. There is Lojban timeline from where one can add more stuff to "History" section of the wikipedia page.Gleki.arxokuna (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lojban today - does it even live on? 

message: As it stands, the section "Lojaban as a speakable logic" states that "Lojban has been shown[40] to be translated in some of its parts into predicate logic." This could use some expansion. I'm assuming that "translated" ought to read "translatable", but then the statement is really weak, since any language is partially translatable into predicate logic. Presumably something more precise is being claimed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.188.19 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lojban as a speakable logic 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Attitudinal indicator. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17#Attitudinal indicator until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hindustanilanguage (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Attitudinal indicator" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]