#lojban — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #lojban, aggregated by home.social.
-
lately I’ve been learning #Esperanto because I want to be able to express my thoughts in a better language than English, and my definition of “better” for a spoken language is exactly the same as it is for a programming language: it should have as much expressive power as possible (letting you express any possible thought as clearly, simply, and easily as possible) while also being as simple (and therefore easy to learn) as possible
but I’ve noticed that sophont-to-sophont languages run into exactly the same “problem” (from my perspective) as sophont-to-computer languages - that being Worse Is Better, where the most popular/usable/learnable languages will have lots of glaring problems that can’t be fixed because they have to maintain backwards compatibility, but the most elegant/beautiful/good languages (by my definition explained above) will have very little support or community around them which will make them much more unpleasant to learn and use
in this case I think of natural languages as being Worse Is Better languages, which are carrying around literally hundreds/thousands(?) of years of terrible cruft, but everybody uses them because everybody is stuck using them, and they don’t really mind anyway because they don’t have the unreasonable/impractical autistic urge to be speaking a language that is “optimal” or “simple” or “elegant” or whatever other subjective words I might use to describe my preferences
I think folks who speak {natural languages / crufty programming languages} are only interested in whatever language(s) get the job done well enough and aren’t too much trouble to use. and honestly, how could I argue with that? they’re undeniably the most practical languages, because everything is written in them and there’s an enormous amount of tooling built around them (like spellchecks and dictionaries and translation systems). meanwhile if you go with the more experimental work-in-progress languages, you’re stuck with a tiny community, very limited learning resources, and almost no tooling at all
I ran into this problem recently within the domain of conlangs (yep - this problem is recursive), because I think that #Lojban is overall a more elegant language than Esperanto, but Lojban is so much harder to learn because it has a much smaller community and way fewer learning resources and translation tools
I’m writing this post in English instead of Esperanto or Lojban, for the same reason that I write my code in Python instead of Fennel or Arc Lisp. and I find that pretty frustrating, but it’s how things work. that’s the perpetual push-pull of practicality and idealism that I have to live with as someone with the unquenchable autistic urge to optimize everything forever
-
lately I’ve been learning #Esperanto because I want to be able to express my thoughts in a better language than English, and my definition of “better” for a spoken language is exactly the same as it is for a programming language: it should have as much expressive power as possible (letting you express any possible thought as clearly, simply, and easily as possible) while also being as simple (and therefore easy to learn) as possible
but I’ve noticed that sophont-to-sophont languages run into exactly the same “problem” (from my perspective) as sophont-to-computer languages - that being Worse Is Better, where the most popular/usable/learnable languages will have lots of glaring problems that can’t be fixed because they have to maintain backwards compatibility, but the most elegant/beautiful/good languages (by my definition explained above) will have very little support or community around them which will make them much more unpleasant to learn and use
in this case I think of natural languages as being Worse Is Better languages, which are carrying around literally hundreds/thousands(?) of years of terrible cruft, but everybody uses them because everybody is stuck using them, and they don’t really mind anyway because they don’t have the unreasonable/impractical autistic urge to be speaking a language that is “optimal” or “simple” or “elegant” or whatever other subjective words I might use to describe my preferences
I think folks who speak {natural languages / crufty programming languages} are only interested in whatever language(s) get the job done well enough and aren’t too much trouble to use. and honestly, how could I argue with that? they’re undeniably the most practical languages, because everything is written in them and there’s an enormous amount of tooling built around them (like spellchecks and dictionaries and translation systems). meanwhile if you go with the more experimental work-in-progress languages, you’re stuck with a tiny community, very limited learning resources, and almost no tooling at all
I ran into this problem recently within the domain of conlangs (yep - this problem is recursive), because I think that #Lojban is overall a more elegant language than Esperanto, but Lojban is so much harder to learn because it has a much smaller community and way fewer learning resources and translation tools
I’m writing this post in English instead of Esperanto or Lojban, for the same reason that I write my code in Python instead of Fennel or Arc Lisp. and I find that pretty frustrating, but it’s how things work. that’s the perpetual push-pull of practicality and idealism that I have to live with as someone with the unquenchable autistic urge to optimize everything forever
-
lately I’ve been learning #Esperanto because I want to be able to express my thoughts in a better language than English, and my definition of “better” for a spoken language is exactly the same as it is for a programming language: it should have as much expressive power as possible (letting you express any possible thought as clearly, simply, and easily as possible) while also being as simple (and therefore easy to learn) as possible
but I’ve noticed that sophont-to-sophont languages run into exactly the same “problem” (from my perspective) as sophont-to-computer languages - that being Worse Is Better, where the most popular/usable/learnable languages will have lots of glaring problems that can’t be fixed because they have to maintain backwards compatibility, but the most elegant/beautiful/good languages (by my definition explained above) will have very little support or community around them which will make them much more unpleasant to learn and use
in this case I think of natural languages as being Worse Is Better languages, which are carrying around literally hundreds/thousands(?) of years of terrible cruft, but everybody uses them because everybody is stuck using them, and they don’t really mind anyway because they don’t have the unreasonable/impractical autistic urge to be speaking a language that is “optimal” or “simple” or “elegant” or whatever other subjective words I might use to describe my preferences
I think folks who speak {natural languages / crufty programming languages} are only interested in whatever language(s) get the job done well enough and aren’t too much trouble to use. and honestly, how could I argue with that? they’re undeniably the most practical languages, because everything is written in them and there’s an enormous amount of tooling built around them (like spellchecks and dictionaries and translation systems). meanwhile if you go with the more experimental work-in-progress languages, you’re stuck with a tiny community, very limited learning resources, and almost no tooling at all
I ran into this problem recently within the domain of conlangs (yep - this problem is recursive), because I think that #Lojban is overall a more elegant language than Esperanto, but Lojban is so much harder to learn because it has a much smaller community and way fewer learning resources and translation tools
I’m writing this post in English instead of Esperanto or Lojban, for the same reason that I write my code in Python instead of Fennel or Arc Lisp. and I find that pretty frustrating, but it’s how things work. that’s the perpetual push-pull of practicality and idealism that I have to live with as someone with the unquenchable autistic urge to optimize everything forever
-
lately I’ve been learning #Esperanto because I want to be able to express my thoughts in a better language than English, and my definition of “better” for a spoken language is exactly the same as it is for a programming language: it should have as much expressive power as possible (letting you express any possible thought as clearly, simply, and easily as possible) while also being as simple (and therefore easy to learn) as possible
but I’ve noticed that sophont-to-sophont languages run into exactly the same “problem” (from my perspective) as sophont-to-computer languages - that being Worse Is Better, where the most popular/usable/learnable languages will have lots of glaring problems that can’t be fixed because they have to maintain backwards compatibility, but the most elegant/beautiful/good languages (by my definition explained above) will have very little support or community around them which will make them much more unpleasant to learn and use
in this case I think of natural languages as being Worse Is Better languages, which are carrying around literally hundreds/thousands(?) of years of terrible cruft, but everybody uses them because everybody is stuck using them, and they don’t really mind anyway because they don’t have the unreasonable/impractical autistic urge to be speaking a language that is “optimal” or “simple” or “elegant” or whatever other subjective words I might use to describe my preferences
I think folks who speak {natural languages / crufty programming languages} are only interested in whatever language(s) get the job done well enough and aren’t too much trouble to use. and honestly, how could I argue with that? they’re undeniably the most practical languages, because everything is written in them and there’s an enormous amount of tooling built around them (like spellchecks and dictionaries and translation systems). meanwhile if you go with the more experimental work-in-progress languages, you’re stuck with a tiny community, very limited learning resources, and almost no tooling at all
I ran into this problem recently within the domain of conlangs (yep - this problem is recursive), because I think that #Lojban is overall a more elegant language than Esperanto, but Lojban is so much harder to learn because it has a much smaller community and way fewer learning resources and translation tools
I’m writing this post in English instead of Esperanto or Lojban, for the same reason that I write my code in Python instead of Fennel or Arc Lisp. and I find that pretty frustrating, but it’s how things work. that’s the perpetual push-pull of practicality and idealism that I have to live with as someone with the unquenchable autistic urge to optimize everything forever
-
lately I’ve been learning #Esperanto because I want to be able to express my thoughts in a better language than English, and my definition of “better” for a spoken language is exactly the same as it is for a programming language: it should have as much expressive power as possible (letting you express any possible thought as clearly, simply, and easily as possible) while also being as simple (and therefore easy to learn) as possible
but I’ve noticed that sophont-to-sophont languages run into exactly the same “problem” (from my perspective) as sophont-to-computer languages - that being Worse Is Better, where the most popular/usable/learnable languages will have lots of glaring problems that can’t be fixed because they have to maintain backwards compatibility, but the most elegant/beautiful/good languages (by my definition explained above) will have very little support or community around them which will make them much more unpleasant to learn and use
in this case I think of natural languages as being Worse Is Better languages, which are carrying around literally hundreds/thousands(?) of years of terrible cruft, but everybody uses them because everybody is stuck using them, and they don’t really mind anyway because they don’t have the unreasonable/impractical autistic urge to be speaking a language that is “optimal” or “simple” or “elegant” or whatever other subjective words I might use to describe my preferences
I think folks who speak {natural languages / crufty programming languages} are only interested in whatever language(s) get the job done well enough and aren’t too much trouble to use. and honestly, how could I argue with that? they’re undeniably the most practical languages, because everything is written in them and there’s an enormous amount of tooling built around them (like spellchecks and dictionaries and translation systems). meanwhile if you go with the more experimental work-in-progress languages, you’re stuck with a tiny community, very limited learning resources, and almost no tooling at all
I ran into this problem recently within the domain of conlangs (yep - this problem is recursive), because I think that #Lojban is overall a more elegant language than Esperanto, but Lojban is so much harder to learn because it has a much smaller community and way fewer learning resources and translation tools
I’m writing this post in English instead of Esperanto or Lojban, for the same reason that I write my code in Python instead of Fennel or Arc Lisp. and I find that pretty frustrating, but it’s how things work. that’s the perpetual push-pull of practicality and idealism that I have to live with as someone with the unquenchable autistic urge to optimize everything forever
-
-
-
-
-
-
for funsies decided to translate my old-ish post into #lojban which turned into a mess of a refactor, but now, i have the post in lojban (and lojban support for the thing that makes my site):
https://vavakado.xyz/jbo/blog/la-declara-de-absurathe refactor took like 2 hours but if i plan to add even more languages it should be WAY easier now :)))
-
for funsies decided to translate my old-ish post into #lojban which turned into a mess of a refactor, but now, i have the post in lojban (and lojban support for the thing that makes my site):
https://vavakado.xyz/jbo/blog/la-declara-de-absurathe refactor took like 2 hours but if i plan to add even more languages it should be WAY easier now :)))
-
for funsies decided to translate my old-ish post into #lojban which turned into a mess of a refactor, but now, i have the post in lojban (and lojban support for the thing that makes my site):
https://vavakado.xyz/jbo/blog/la-declara-de-absurathe refactor took like 2 hours but if i plan to add even more languages it should be WAY easier now :)))
-
for funsies decided to translate my old-ish post into #lojban which turned into a mess of a refactor, but now, i have the post in lojban (and lojban support for the thing that makes my site):
https://vavakado.xyz/jbo/blog/la-declara-de-absurathe refactor took like 2 hours but if i plan to add even more languages it should be WAY easier now :)))
-
for funsies decided to translate my old-ish post into #lojban which turned into a mess of a refactor, but now, i have the post in lojban (and lojban support for the thing that makes my site):
https://vavakado.xyz/jbo/blog/la-declara-de-absurathe refactor took like 2 hours but if i plan to add even more languages it should be WAY easier now :)))
-
I was wrong, turns out there /is/ a way to indicate the dialect. Ironically, it's unofficial
-
I was wrong, turns out there /is/ a way to indicate the dialect. Ironically, it's unofficial
-
I was wrong, turns out there /is/ a way to indicate the dialect. Ironically, it's unofficial
-
I suppose, many emoji are attitudinal indicators, that are usually placed at the end, when applied to the whole sentence 🤔
-
I suppose, many emoji are attitudinal indicators, that are usually placed at the end, when applied to the whole sentence 🤔
-
I suppose, many emoji are attitudinal indicators, that are usually placed at the end, when applied to the whole sentence 🤔
-
I suppose, many emoji are attitudinal indicators, that are usually placed at the end, when applied to the whole sentence 🤔
-
I suppose, many emoji are attitudinal indicators, that are usually placed at the end, when applied to the whole sentence 🤔
-
su'a pe'i mi nelci
lo ka sucta .e lo ka ka'e cusku ce'u kei
pe la lojban
zi'e noi so'u va'e fapro lo ke logji pagbu be le bangu ke'e
poi pe'i srana lo ka satci .e to'e sucta -
su'a pe'i mi nelci
lo ka sucta .e lo ka ka'e cusku ce'u kei
pe la lojban
zi'e noi so'u va'e fapro lo ke logji pagbu be le bangu ke'e
poi pe'i srana lo ka satci .e to'e sucta -
I guess, generalizing, I like the 'abstraction' and 'expressivity' in Lojban, which is a bit at odds with the 'logical' part of the language which (I presume) is more about 'precision' and 'concreteness'.
That said, I am no expert; there are parts of the lojban grammar I haven't even touched yet. Maybe my perception of lojban is completely off lol
-
I guess, generalizing, I like the 'abstraction' and 'expressivity' in Lojban, which is a bit at odds with the 'logical' part of the language which (I presume) is more about 'precision' and 'concreteness'.
That said, I am no expert; there are parts of the lojban grammar I haven't even touched yet. Maybe my perception of lojban is completely off lol
-
.a'u .aicu'i la'acu'i mi tadni ko'a goi lo tokpono bangu
.i ju'a mi sanji lo sidbo be fi ko'a
.ije ku'i go'i po'o .u'i
.i ku'i ko'a frica la .lojban. lo ka ka'e ba'o te cilre .i .u'i 😁
.i .u'e ma cu se simsa lo nu tavla be fo ko'a? -
.a'u .aicu'i la'acu'i mi tadni ko'a goi lo tokpono bangu
.i ju'a mi sanji lo sidbo be fi ko'a
.ije ku'i go'i po'o .u'i
.i ku'i ko'a frica la .lojban. lo ka ka'e ba'o te cilre .i .u'i 😁
.i .u'e ma cu se simsa lo nu tavla be fo ko'a? -
Should've prefaced this with
0. Everything is a verb. The 'nouns' are embedded into verbs, either in their 'core' or in their arguments. You can 'extract' them. This makes for some interesting mental gymnastics sometimes.
-
Should've prefaced this with
0. Everything is a verb. The 'nouns' are embedded into verbs, either in their 'core' or in their arguments. You can 'extract' them. This makes for some interesting mental gymnastics sometimes.
-
Should've prefaced this with
0. Everything is a verb. The 'nouns' are embedded into verbs, either in their 'core' or in their arguments. You can 'extract' them. This makes for some interesting mental gymnastics sometimes.
-
Should've prefaced this with
0. Everything is a verb. The 'nouns' are embedded into verbs, either in their 'core' or in their arguments. You can 'extract' them. This makes for some interesting mental gymnastics sometimes.
-
Should've prefaced this with
0. Everything is a verb. The 'nouns' are embedded into verbs, either in their 'core' or in their arguments. You can 'extract' them. This makes for some interesting mental gymnastics sometimes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Decided to write about what I like about lojban, for the sake of balance :D
1. 'Focusing' on a particular argument of a verb (and in L, everything is a verb); English does that as well to an extent, via the passive voice; but L has it on steroids. This is also used to turn verbs into nouns.
2. 'Partially applied' verbs; e.g. 'X gives Y to Z' you can pre-fill any of the X, Y and Z. That with the previous point makes a powerful mechanism to express complex relations tersely.
-
Decided to write about what I like about lojban, for the sake of balance :D
1. 'Focusing' on a particular argument of a verb (and in L, everything is a verb); English does that as well to an extent, via the passive voice; but L has it on steroids. This is also used to turn verbs into nouns.
2. 'Partially applied' verbs; e.g. 'X gives Y to Z' you can pre-fill any of the X, Y and Z. That with the previous point makes a powerful mechanism to express complex relations tersely.
-
Decided to write about what I like about lojban, for the sake of balance :D
1. 'Focusing' on a particular argument of a verb (and in L, everything is a verb); English does that as well to an extent, via the passive voice; but L has it on steroids. This is also used to turn verbs into nouns.
2. 'Partially applied' verbs; e.g. 'X gives Y to Z' you can pre-fill any of the X, Y and Z. That with the previous point makes a powerful mechanism to express complex relations tersely.
-
Decided to write about what I like about lojban, for the sake of balance :D
1. 'Focusing' on a particular argument of a verb (and in L, everything is a verb); English does that as well to an extent, via the passive voice; but L has it on steroids. This is also used to turn verbs into nouns.
2. 'Partially applied' verbs; e.g. 'X gives Y to Z' you can pre-fill any of the X, Y and Z. That with the previous point makes a powerful mechanism to express complex relations tersely.
-
Decided to write about what I like about lojban, for the sake of balance :D
1. 'Focusing' on a particular argument of a verb (and in L, everything is a verb); English does that as well to an extent, via the passive voice; but L has it on steroids. This is also used to turn verbs into nouns.
2. 'Partially applied' verbs; e.g. 'X gives Y to Z' you can pre-fill any of the X, Y and Z. That with the previous point makes a powerful mechanism to express complex relations tersely.
-
3. Dialects. There are several (incompatible) varieties of lojban; some seem more adopted than others. This is probably not so bad and sort of expected in a conlang but, I wish there were disclaimers like "we're using version X.Y.Z in this text"; I mean, lojban has words for paragraph breaks ffs, yet no words for such metadata?
3.1. BTW yes, the verbalized paragraph breaks are just silly 😁
-
3. Dialects. There are several (incompatible) varieties of lojban; some seem more adopted than others. This is probably not so bad and sort of expected in a conlang but, I wish there were disclaimers like "we're using version X.Y.Z in this text"; I mean, lojban has words for paragraph breaks ffs, yet no words for such metadata?
3.1. BTW yes, the verbalized paragraph breaks are just silly 😁
-
3. Dialects. There are several (incompatible) varieties of lojban; some seem more adopted than others. This is probably not so bad and sort of expected in a conlang but, I wish there were disclaimers like "we're using version X.Y.Z in this text"; I mean, lojban has words for paragraph breaks ffs, yet no words for such metadata?
3.1. BTW yes, the verbalized paragraph breaks are just silly 😁
-
3. Dialects. There are several (incompatible) varieties of lojban; some seem more adopted than others. This is probably not so bad and sort of expected in a conlang but, I wish there were disclaimers like "we're using version X.Y.Z in this text"; I mean, lojban has words for paragraph breaks ffs, yet no words for such metadata?
3.1. BTW yes, the verbalized paragraph breaks are just silly 😁
-
3. Dialects. There are several (incompatible) varieties of lojban; some seem more adopted than others. This is probably not so bad and sort of expected in a conlang but, I wish there were disclaimers like "we're using version X.Y.Z in this text"; I mean, lojban has words for paragraph breaks ffs, yet no words for such metadata?
3.1. BTW yes, the verbalized paragraph breaks are just silly 😁
-
2. Lack of consistency in the gismu places. I've been classifying the gismu places by semantics and they are basically all over the place. One example is in the screenshot. Just, why!? This might seem contrived or fixable but, there are more examples like this. For instance, they couldn't decide on the order SOURCE - DESTINATION vs DESTINATION - SOURCE. This makes it harder to learn the words and is just, well, pas comme il faut for a 'logical' language
-
2. Lack of consistency in the gismu places. I've been classifying the gismu places by semantics and they are basically all over the place. One example is in the screenshot. Just, why!? This might seem contrived or fixable but, there are more examples like this. For instance, they couldn't decide on the order SOURCE - DESTINATION vs DESTINATION - SOURCE. This makes it harder to learn the words and is just, well, pas comme il faut for a 'logical' language
-
2. Lack of consistency in the gismu places. I've been classifying the gismu places by semantics and they are basically all over the place. One example is in the screenshot. Just, why!? This might seem contrived or fixable but, there are more examples like this. For instance, they couldn't decide on the order SOURCE - DESTINATION vs DESTINATION - SOURCE. This makes it harder to learn the words and is just, well, pas comme il faut for a 'logical' language
-
2. Lack of consistency in the gismu places. I've been classifying the gismu places by semantics and they are basically all over the place. One example is in the screenshot. Just, why!? This might seem contrived or fixable but, there are more examples like this. For instance, they couldn't decide on the order SOURCE - DESTINATION vs DESTINATION - SOURCE. This makes it harder to learn the words and is just, well, pas comme il faut for a 'logical' language
-
2. Lack of consistency in the gismu places. I've been classifying the gismu places by semantics and they are basically all over the place. One example is in the screenshot. Just, why!? This might seem contrived or fixable but, there are more examples like this. For instance, they couldn't decide on the order SOURCE - DESTINATION vs DESTINATION - SOURCE. This makes it harder to learn the words and is just, well, pas comme il faut for a 'logical' language
-
my gripes with lojban are, currently, the following:
1. Lack of noise robustness. This includes both the literal noise when speaking and the digital noise, for example typos. My favourite example: `so'i` means `many` while `so'u` means `few`. They are literally next to each other on the keyboard yet are the exact opposites. This is the result of a very tight morphology coupled with a certain knack for loading the alphabetic order with semantic meaning
👇
-
my gripes with lojban are, currently, the following:
1. Lack of noise robustness. This includes both the literal noise when speaking and the digital noise, for example typos. My favourite example: `so'i` means `many` while `so'u` means `few`. They are literally next to each other on the keyboard yet are the exact opposites. This is the result of a very tight morphology coupled with a certain knack for loading the alphabetic order with semantic meaning
👇
-
my gripes with lojban are, currently, the following:
1. Lack of noise robustness. This includes both the literal noise when speaking and the digital noise, for example typos. My favourite example: `so'i` means `many` while `so'u` means `few`. They are literally next to each other on the keyboard yet are the exact opposites. This is the result of a very tight morphology coupled with a certain knack for loading the alphabetic order with semantic meaning
👇
-
my gripes with lojban are, currently, the following:
1. Lack of noise robustness. This includes both the literal noise when speaking and the digital noise, for example typos. My favourite example: `so'i` means `many` while `so'u` means `few`. They are literally next to each other on the keyboard yet are the exact opposites. This is the result of a very tight morphology coupled with a certain knack for loading the alphabetic order with semantic meaning
👇
-
my gripes with lojban are, currently, the following:
1. Lack of noise robustness. This includes both the literal noise when speaking and the digital noise, for example typos. My favourite example: `so'i` means `many` while `so'u` means `few`. They are literally next to each other on the keyboard yet are the exact opposites. This is the result of a very tight morphology coupled with a certain knack for loading the alphabetic order with semantic meaning
👇
-