Talk:Lojban

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Someone put {{mssion}}. Should we get rid of it or not? --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 20:13, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure; the mission statement says that this wiki is for refuting the anti-science movement, which this doesn't really go along with, but this language does promote logic and therefore scientific and rational thought. --Eupocalith 20:15, 2 December 2007 (EST)

'twas I who missioned it so you know what I think. Susanpurrrrr ... 20:17, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Anyone else have anything to say about this? --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 20:22, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Google "artificial language" - there's a wiki just for them (this one didn't come up). Susanpurrrrr ... 20:24, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Perhaps "in need of rwfication"?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:38, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah doc. Having read a bit (& I mean a little bit) about it, I think it's ok for us. Susanpurrrrr ... 20:40, 2 December 2007 (EST)
I also don't see what it adds, but maybe someone creative can come up with an idea.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:43, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure what it adds either. The very fact that nothing links to or from it indicates that's it's a bity out of place. On the other hand promoting science and logic - could be. I'd say leave it and see if it grows into something. --Bobbing up 05:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)

If nothing else, all this about unambiguity and cultural neutrality seems more than a little naive. I wonder if these people have ever heard of the wp:Linguistic turn. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:40, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Potential Relevance[edit]

(rationalizing my large contribution/C&Ping from older things I've written)[edit]

  • The history has vague relevance to authoritarianism (original creator tried to keep a tight rein on Loglan).
  • One goal of the language is to promote clearer thinking and prevent the kinds of misunderstandings that turn into woo.
  • The Saphir-Whorf Hypothesis is the whole reasoning behind Newspeak and is also related to "framing".
  • Hearing about the strange subculture and idealistic goals, someone may be concerned that this is cultish or woo (the focus on "logic" reminds me of Objectivist rhetoric), so they might look here.
  • If Lojban gets to be something more than just a few dozen people's hobby, it may actually become cult-ish or woo-y.
  • General interest. Several articles here have a marginal relationship to pseudoscience and authoritarianism, but they stick around because they are likely to interest the same people who are looking up more mission-relevant topics.

--Quantheory (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have lists of detailed information or do we not?[edit]

What do they add, apart from "someone might find it interesting." I don't see the point of burying mission-related stuff with what is basically encyclopedia fodder. SophieWilder 18:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Shortening the list, or removing it entirely, I could cheerfully endorse. Your piece of running text replacing the list, however, is harder to read than the list. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Remove it if you like. SophieWilder 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Terrible mixture of Loglan and Lojban[edit]

The current text mixes Loglan an Lojban all the time. Shouldn't we be more clear in what we are describing? — Unsigned, by: Gleki / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 05:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Semantic Abiguity[edit]

The article says "It is considered impossible to have a semantically unambiguous language; even a race of emotionless, logic-obsessed Vulcans would presumably misunderstand each other from time to time. Rather, Lojban aims for unambiguous syntax. " this implies lojban creators think semantic unambiguity is impossible and so just aimed for doing a unambiguous syntax, this is false,they just cared about doing a unambiguous syntax and thats why they never did or tried to make lojban be semantically unambiguous language. This doenst mean they think semantically unambiguous language is possible (or not), just means the thoughts about it being possible or not had nothing to do with the fact the language dont try to do it. — Unsigned, by: 2804:7f2:594:4c46:75cc:f4d7:5a5d:91c7 / talk / contribs