Topic: Lojban: the logical language.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #4,846
Lojban.org:
> Lojban is a carefully constructed spoken language designed in the hope of removing a large portion of the ambiguity from human communication. It was made well-known by a Scientific American article and references in science fiction Lojban has been built over five decades by dozens of workers and hundreds of supporters.
> Lojban has a number of features which make it unique:
> Lojban is designed to be used by people in communication with each other, and possibly in the future with computers.
> Lojban is designed to be culturally neutral.
> Lojban has an unambiguous grammar, which is based on the principles of logic.
> Lojban has phonetic spelling, and unambiguous resolution of sounds into words.
> Lojban is simple compared to natural languages; it is easy to learn.
> Lojban's 1300 root words can be easily combined to form a vocabulary of millions of words.
> Lojban is regular; the rules of the language are without exception.
> Lojban attempts to remove restrictions on creative and clear thought and communication.
> Lojban has a variety of uses, ranging from the creative to the scientific, from the theoretical to the practical.
Isn't that all very wonderful?
> Yes, but it has very few speakers, so there is no point in learning it!
Lojban was created to change the way you think into a more logical way. It's intention is not to be the global language, although that would be nice, and so it's not a competitor to any natural languages, or even Esperanto. If you do want to talk to someone in lojban though, it's very easy thanks to the internet and you can find a lot of people to speak it with.
It's easy to learn, lets you think in new ways, and can be fun!
> Lojban is a carefully constructed spoken language designed in the hope of removing a large portion of the ambiguity from human communication. It was made well-known by a Scientific American article and references in science fiction Lojban has been built over five decades by dozens of workers and hundreds of supporters.
> Lojban has a number of features which make it unique:
> Lojban is designed to be used by people in communication with each other, and possibly in the future with computers.
> Lojban is designed to be culturally neutral.
> Lojban has an unambiguous grammar, which is based on the principles of logic.
> Lojban has phonetic spelling, and unambiguous resolution of sounds into words.
> Lojban is simple compared to natural languages; it is easy to learn.
> Lojban's 1300 root words can be easily combined to form a vocabulary of millions of words.
> Lojban is regular; the rules of the language are without exception.
> Lojban attempts to remove restrictions on creative and clear thought and communication.
> Lojban has a variety of uses, ranging from the creative to the scientific, from the theoretical to the practical.
Isn't that all very wonderful?
> Yes, but it has very few speakers, so there is no point in learning it!
Lojban was created to change the way you think into a more logical way. It's intention is not to be the global language, although that would be nice, and so it's not a competitor to any natural languages, or even Esperanto. If you do want to talk to someone in lojban though, it's very easy thanks to the internet and you can find a lot of people to speak it with.
It's easy to learn, lets you think in new ways, and can be fun!
DrGreen !pFNWNYROxA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #85,779
Only logical language is Klingon.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #85,788
@previous (DrGreen !pFNWNYROxA)
Some guy forced his son to speak only Klingon for the first 3 years of his life.
Some guy forced his son to speak only Klingon for the first 3 years of his life.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,158
I prefer interlingua.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,221
Depressionman !!MTp2bI+3Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 46 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,312
No human language, by nature, can do what this language claims. For example, no language can be culturally-neutral.
Depressionman !!MTp2bI+3Q double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,322
@previous (Depressionman !!MTp2bI+3Q)
For example: I just looked up Lojban, and an example sentence included the word "house." Now, different people from different cultures will think of something different when they think of "house." Africans may think of huts. Europeans may think of thatched-roof villas. Americans may think of two-story ranch dwellings. Rich people may think of mansions. Poor people may think of trailers, etc. Nothing is culturally-neutral.
For example: I just looked up Lojban, and an example sentence included the word "house." Now, different people from different cultures will think of something different when they think of "house." Africans may think of huts. Europeans may think of thatched-roof villas. Americans may think of two-story ranch dwellings. Rich people may think of mansions. Poor people may think of trailers, etc. Nothing is culturally-neutral.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,334
@86,312 (Depressionman !!MTp2bI+3Q)
Lojban is though. It is culturally neutral because it is constructed from all types of earth languages. It's just as easy for an English speaker to learn Lojban as it is for speakers of Korean, Japanese, French, Spanish, Cockney, etc.
Also, any idea can be expressed, without relying on cultural idioms and other language barriers that may exist between two people attempting a conversation. Lojban is the closest thing to a culturally neutral language that exists, currently.
Lojban is though. It is culturally neutral because it is constructed from all types of earth languages. It's just as easy for an English speaker to learn Lojban as it is for speakers of Korean, Japanese, French, Spanish, Cockney, etc.
Also, any idea can be expressed, without relying on cultural idioms and other language barriers that may exist between two people attempting a conversation. Lojban is the closest thing to a culturally neutral language that exists, currently.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,338
@86,322 (Depressionman !!MTp2bI+3Q)
If it was relevant or important to the conversation, you could simply add a modifer to "house".
You can be as detailed or as vague as is required.
If it was relevant or important to the conversation, you could simply add a modifer to "house".
You can be as detailed or as vague as is required.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Depressionman !!MTp2bI+3Q replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,340
@previous (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
Yes, it can be. Example: "I have five friends staying at my house for a week, and it is crowded!" would mean two different things to a hut dweller, and a mansion-dweller.
Yes, it can be. Example: "I have five friends staying at my house for a week, and it is crowded!" would mean two different things to a hut dweller, and a mansion-dweller.
Depressionman !!MTp2bI+3Q double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,345
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Good point actually.
Good point actually.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,408
not trolling but esperanto and lojban seem a bit too aspie-like in their persuit of simplicity and logicality etc...
interlingua is the only language i can imagine a normal person using
interlingua is the only language i can imagine a normal person using
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,415
@86,322 (Depressionman !!MTp2bI+3Q)
The word you are probably thinking of is home, which is culturally neutral. If you would like to be more specific you can, but thinking "hut" or any other example you gave is a mistake of the person speaking it.
The word you are probably thinking of is home, which is culturally neutral. If you would like to be more specific you can, but thinking "hut" or any other example you gave is a mistake of the person speaking it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,418
@86,408 (G)
Interlingua is a European language, a mix of them all, it doesn't improve anything, and no one will ever use it. It's only useful if people do use it, and so at best you can understand people a little better, and sound like a moron yourself.
Learning another actual natural European language is better than learning interlingua.
Interlingua is a European language, a mix of them all, it doesn't improve anything, and no one will ever use it. It's only useful if people do use it, and so at best you can understand people a little better, and sound like a moron yourself.
Learning another actual natural European language is better than learning interlingua.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,420
@previous (A)
> Interlingua is a European language...
Esperanto's a European language too. Lojban as well, to a lesser extent.
> It's only useful if people do use it...
Yeah, that's pretty much true of every language.
> Learning another actual natural European language is better than learning interlingua.
Interlingua is a lot simpler and easy to learn than any natural European language.
> Interlingua is a European language...
Esperanto's a European language too. Lojban as well, to a lesser extent.
> It's only useful if people do use it...
Yeah, that's pretty much true of every language.
> Learning another actual natural European language is better than learning interlingua.
Interlingua is a lot simpler and easy to learn than any natural European language.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,421
@previous (G)
> Esperanto's a European language too.
Esperanto is based on European vocabulary, but the grammar is from many languages (turkish, russian, chinese), and it has a few simple rules that make it easier to learn, and understand. If you know any word you know how to say it's antonym, all letters have only one sound, you can turn any word into many other words by adding an affix (knowing a single root word means being able to say many many words from the affixes you attatch).
400,000 Chinese (at least) speak Esperanto out of it's 2 million total active speakers Why? Because it's easy for them, Interlingua would be just as hard as English, or German, or any other language.
Esperanto is the easiest language to learn regardless of your first language. And minimal work will allow you a lot of understanding.
> Lojban as well, to a lesser extent.
From it's Wikipedia page, sourced from The Compete Lojban Language, the definitive book:
> The main sources of its basic vocabulary were the six (at the time) most widely spoken languages: Mandarin, English, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic, chosen to reduce the unfamiliarity or strangeness of the root words to people of diverse linguistic backgrounds
And that's just it's vocabulary, it's actual grammar is very far off from any language that exists, they don't have verbs for example, they have "selbri" which are somewhat different.
> Yeah, that's pretty much true of every language.
Esperanto has 2 million speakers, and the Passporto Servo which offers free housing across the world, along with a big online community, and many local meetups in most big cities.
Lojban was created to change the way people speak, it's not intended to be an international auxilary language. It has many speakers, and you can speak it and communicate with them thanks to the internet, but mainly it's a language-of-thought, and seeing how communication affects conversations. It's also growing very fast.
> > Learning another actual natural European language is better than learning interlingua.
>
> Interlingua is a lot simpler and easy to learn than any natural European language.
You still have to spend some time learning which words they chose, and trying to speak it will not work well with someone unacquainted with it. Most people in Europe will understand your English better.
Interlingua has already failed, it was an interesting idea, and others tried it as well (Slovio as a go-between for Slavic language, but like English did for interlingua, Russian is the go-between).
> Esperanto's a European language too.
Esperanto is based on European vocabulary, but the grammar is from many languages (turkish, russian, chinese), and it has a few simple rules that make it easier to learn, and understand. If you know any word you know how to say it's antonym, all letters have only one sound, you can turn any word into many other words by adding an affix (knowing a single root word means being able to say many many words from the affixes you attatch).
400,000 Chinese (at least) speak Esperanto out of it's 2 million total active speakers Why? Because it's easy for them, Interlingua would be just as hard as English, or German, or any other language.
Esperanto is the easiest language to learn regardless of your first language. And minimal work will allow you a lot of understanding.
> Lojban as well, to a lesser extent.
From it's Wikipedia page, sourced from The Compete Lojban Language, the definitive book:
> The main sources of its basic vocabulary were the six (at the time) most widely spoken languages: Mandarin, English, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic, chosen to reduce the unfamiliarity or strangeness of the root words to people of diverse linguistic backgrounds
And that's just it's vocabulary, it's actual grammar is very far off from any language that exists, they don't have verbs for example, they have "selbri" which are somewhat different.
> Yeah, that's pretty much true of every language.
Esperanto has 2 million speakers, and the Passporto Servo which offers free housing across the world, along with a big online community, and many local meetups in most big cities.
Lojban was created to change the way people speak, it's not intended to be an international auxilary language. It has many speakers, and you can speak it and communicate with them thanks to the internet, but mainly it's a language-of-thought, and seeing how communication affects conversations. It's also growing very fast.
> > Learning another actual natural European language is better than learning interlingua.
>
> Interlingua is a lot simpler and easy to learn than any natural European language.
You still have to spend some time learning which words they chose, and trying to speak it will not work well with someone unacquainted with it. Most people in Europe will understand your English better.
Interlingua has already failed, it was an interesting idea, and others tried it as well (Slovio as a go-between for Slavic language, but like English did for interlingua, Russian is the go-between).
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,431
@previous (A)
> Esperanto is based on European vocabulary...
Yes exactly. Plus it uses a European writing system. Plus it uses European sounds. Plus it uses European semantics.
Its creator may have aimed to create a non-European language, but he failed miserably.
> 400,000 Chinese (at least) speak Esperanto out of it's 2 million total active speakers Why? Because it's easy for them, Interlingua would be just as hard as English, or German, or any other language.
No, because Esperanto is more popular.
And my ass Interlingua is as hard as English or German.
> Esperanto has 2 million speakers, and the Passporto Servo which offers free housing across the world, along with a big online community, and many local meetups in most big cities.
Exactly. Esperanto is also only useful if people speak it. Same with Interlingua.
> You still have to spend some time learning which words they chose, and trying to speak it will not work well with someone unacquainted with it. Most people in Europe will understand your English better.
Same can be said of Esperanto.
> Interlingua has already failed...
So has Esperanto. But Interlingua would have made a better international axillary language.
> it was an interesting idea, and others tried it as well (Slovio as a go-between for Slavic language, but like English did for interlingua, Russian is the go-between).
There was also one based on Germanic languages. But basing Interlingua on Latin languages was a smart move IMO.
> Esperanto is based on European vocabulary...
Yes exactly. Plus it uses a European writing system. Plus it uses European sounds. Plus it uses European semantics.
Its creator may have aimed to create a non-European language, but he failed miserably.
> 400,000 Chinese (at least) speak Esperanto out of it's 2 million total active speakers Why? Because it's easy for them, Interlingua would be just as hard as English, or German, or any other language.
No, because Esperanto is more popular.
And my ass Interlingua is as hard as English or German.
> Esperanto has 2 million speakers, and the Passporto Servo which offers free housing across the world, along with a big online community, and many local meetups in most big cities.
Exactly. Esperanto is also only useful if people speak it. Same with Interlingua.
> You still have to spend some time learning which words they chose, and trying to speak it will not work well with someone unacquainted with it. Most people in Europe will understand your English better.
Same can be said of Esperanto.
> Interlingua has already failed...
So has Esperanto. But Interlingua would have made a better international axillary language.
> it was an interesting idea, and others tried it as well (Slovio as a go-between for Slavic language, but like English did for interlingua, Russian is the go-between).
There was also one based on Germanic languages. But basing Interlingua on Latin languages was a smart move IMO.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,432
Lojban is nice, but Esperanto is the only one with any real use.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,438
@86,431 (G)
> No, because Esperanto is more popular.
For a reason.
> And my ass Interlingua is as hard as English or German.
If you aren't coming from a European language Esperanto is much easier to learn.
Esperanto:
Tree: arbo
A collection of, toegether, many as one: -ar
Tree is a basic root word, and "-ar" is a suffix you learn early on. You have never heard the word "arbaro" before, but hearing it for the first time anyone can understand it is "forest".
Interlingua:
Tree: Arbore
Forest: Foreste
For a European speaker it may not matter, but for a Chinese speaker it is not intuitive, and they have to memorize many more words, because the people creating interlingua aimed it for European speakers only.
When you have a whole language like this, Esperanto becomes much, much quicker to learn, and understand even if you haven't heard the word before.
Esperanto vocabulary might be easier for an European speaker, but the language as a whole is very easy even if you speak Chinese, Arabic, or another language natively.
> > Esperanto has 2 million speakers, and the Passporto Servo which offers free housing across the world, along with a big online community, and many local meetups in most big cities.
> Exactly. Esperanto is also only useful if people speak it. Same with Interlingua.
The difference? 2 Million people speak Esperanto, and it's easy to connect with them.
How many people speak Interlingua? Not many at all, and for the few that do it would be hard to find them.
> Same can be said of Esperanto.
If I am trying to talk to someone who speaks Arabic, or Chinese, the quickest way for us to share a common language is for us both to spend a little time learning Esperanto. In combined man hours that will be quicker than one of us learning the others language, and it is less ambiguous.
> > Interlingua has already failed...
> So has Esperanto.
Esperanto has 2 million speakers, and since the internet has become more widespread it is growing faster than ever. You can take your Esperanto and talk to people on Skype, or walk down to a local meetup, or visit nearly any country and stay at another speakers house for free, or perhaps visit the annual Esperanto Congress where thousands of speakers meet.
> But Interlingua would have made a better international axillary language.
Not for Chinese speakers, or Arabic speakers, or anyone else.
It didn't even take off in Europe, while Esperanto is gaining popularity in China, and many other countries.
If it was good, people would have used it.
> No, because Esperanto is more popular.
For a reason.
> And my ass Interlingua is as hard as English or German.
If you aren't coming from a European language Esperanto is much easier to learn.
Esperanto:
Tree: arbo
A collection of, toegether, many as one: -ar
Tree is a basic root word, and "-ar" is a suffix you learn early on. You have never heard the word "arbaro" before, but hearing it for the first time anyone can understand it is "forest".
Interlingua:
Tree: Arbore
Forest: Foreste
For a European speaker it may not matter, but for a Chinese speaker it is not intuitive, and they have to memorize many more words, because the people creating interlingua aimed it for European speakers only.
When you have a whole language like this, Esperanto becomes much, much quicker to learn, and understand even if you haven't heard the word before.
Esperanto vocabulary might be easier for an European speaker, but the language as a whole is very easy even if you speak Chinese, Arabic, or another language natively.
> > Esperanto has 2 million speakers, and the Passporto Servo which offers free housing across the world, along with a big online community, and many local meetups in most big cities.
> Exactly. Esperanto is also only useful if people speak it. Same with Interlingua.
The difference? 2 Million people speak Esperanto, and it's easy to connect with them.
How many people speak Interlingua? Not many at all, and for the few that do it would be hard to find them.
> Same can be said of Esperanto.
If I am trying to talk to someone who speaks Arabic, or Chinese, the quickest way for us to share a common language is for us both to spend a little time learning Esperanto. In combined man hours that will be quicker than one of us learning the others language, and it is less ambiguous.
> > Interlingua has already failed...
> So has Esperanto.
Esperanto has 2 million speakers, and since the internet has become more widespread it is growing faster than ever. You can take your Esperanto and talk to people on Skype, or walk down to a local meetup, or visit nearly any country and stay at another speakers house for free, or perhaps visit the annual Esperanto Congress where thousands of speakers meet.
> But Interlingua would have made a better international axillary language.
Not for Chinese speakers, or Arabic speakers, or anyone else.
It didn't even take off in Europe, while Esperanto is gaining popularity in China, and many other countries.
If it was good, people would have used it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,450
@previous (A)
> For a reason.
Yes. It got in there first.
> If you aren't coming from a European language Esperanto is much easier to learn.
> Esperanto:
> Tree: arbo
> A collection of, toegether, many as one: -ar
> Tree is a basic root word, and "-ar" is a suffix you learn early on. You have never heard the word "arbaro" before, but hearing it for the first time anyone can understand it is "forest".
>
> Interlingua:
> Tree: Arbore
> Forest: Foreste
Interlingua: Hospital
English: Hospital
Irish: Hospital
Scottish: Hospital
Manx: Hospital
Breton: Hospital
Dutch: Hospital
Danish: Hospital
Afrikaans: Hospital
Ukrainian: Hospital
Polish: Hospital
Hindi: Hospital
Urdu: Hospital
Bengali: Hospital
Mongolian: Hospital
Turkmen: Hospital
Azerbaijani: Hospital
Indonesian: Hospital
Ilocano: Hospital
Tagalog: Hospital
Tetum: Hospital
Chamorro: Hospital
Swahili: Hospital
Kongo: Hospital
Setswana: Hospital
Papiamento: Hospital
Albanian: Hospital
Mapunzugun: Hospital
Basque: Hospital
Esperanto: Malsanulejo
SO LOGICAL. I LOVE IT.
You still have to learn words and contrary to popular belief, Esperanto's system only makes it easier to invent words, not to learn them. This is just part of how the human brain works. Really all Esperanto does is make the language hard for all people to learn instead of easy for a large proportion of people to learn.
> The difference? 2 Million people speak Esperanto, and it's easy to connect with them.
Why not learn Spanish or some other popular language if you just want to connect to people?
> Not for Chinese speakers, or Arabic speakers, or anyone else.
Wouldn't make much difference. Esperanto is a European language too.
> For a reason.
Yes. It got in there first.
> If you aren't coming from a European language Esperanto is much easier to learn.
> Esperanto:
> Tree: arbo
> A collection of, toegether, many as one: -ar
> Tree is a basic root word, and "-ar" is a suffix you learn early on. You have never heard the word "arbaro" before, but hearing it for the first time anyone can understand it is "forest".
>
> Interlingua:
> Tree: Arbore
> Forest: Foreste
Interlingua: Hospital
English: Hospital
Irish: Hospital
Scottish: Hospital
Manx: Hospital
Breton: Hospital
Dutch: Hospital
Danish: Hospital
Afrikaans: Hospital
Ukrainian: Hospital
Polish: Hospital
Hindi: Hospital
Urdu: Hospital
Bengali: Hospital
Mongolian: Hospital
Turkmen: Hospital
Azerbaijani: Hospital
Indonesian: Hospital
Ilocano: Hospital
Tagalog: Hospital
Tetum: Hospital
Chamorro: Hospital
Swahili: Hospital
Kongo: Hospital
Setswana: Hospital
Papiamento: Hospital
Albanian: Hospital
Mapunzugun: Hospital
Basque: Hospital
Esperanto: Malsanulejo
SO LOGICAL. I LOVE IT.
You still have to learn words and contrary to popular belief, Esperanto's system only makes it easier to invent words, not to learn them. This is just part of how the human brain works. Really all Esperanto does is make the language hard for all people to learn instead of easy for a large proportion of people to learn.
> The difference? 2 Million people speak Esperanto, and it's easy to connect with them.
Why not learn Spanish or some other popular language if you just want to connect to people?
> Not for Chinese speakers, or Arabic speakers, or anyone else.
Wouldn't make much difference. Esperanto is a European language too.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,453
> long list of words
Lol, I just translated a bunch of them and many do not translate into hospital. I only tested ones that use latin-based characters, and they translated into something else.
But yes, many are very similar to hospital.
Yes, some words are near universal, but obviously very few are because people in those languages cannot understand each other. You chose a word which is already universal. Does Esperanto follow that? No. Because it has rules which allow it to form the word without creating a new word, so why would you bother with "hospital" it's unnecessary.
You seem to think Esperanto was made like interlingua, or slovia, attempting to be immediately understandable by speakers of related languages, but it's not. it's a new language, with new words. Someone can look at "malsanulejo" and knowing the single 3 letter root and the 3 affixes can understand what it means. Of course people who do not speak Esperanto would not be able to understand that right away, however very basic lessons will be enough to understand it.
When dealing with non-universal words (most) Esperanto is great.
I know "ludo" is game, and can change the "-o" (noun) to "-as" (verb, present tense) and get play (ludas). I can add "-ej" in there to signify a place where people play (ludejo), or add "-ul" to show it's a gamer (ludulo).
malsanulejo: sano = health, malsano = sickness, malsanulo = sick person, malsanulejo = place of sick people
It doesn't matter if Esperanto doesn't have the same word as many other languages because it's just so damn easy to understand it once you have the basics.
And interlingua? A European creole. Understandable because you speak a similar language, makes sense when you use a few universal terms, but everyone chose English anyway. Creole form anyway, I could say "hospital" whether or not I spoke interlingua.
> Esperanto came first
Lojban came last. It is even harder to learn than Esperanto or IA and is even further away from the world's natural languaes, and is growing very fast. Obviously you are just making excuses for why interlingua isn't successful. No one speaks it because it isn't useful, and doesn't improve anything.
Funny thing is, it shouldn't matter how many people speak interlingua, should it? It's point is that it's mutually understandable to a good degree with most languages? Then it should be easy to get people to speak it, and yet no one does.
No one will understand Esperanto if first hearing it, because the latin roots are only the small core of the word. And yet people like it enough to speak it because of the grammar.
Lol, I just translated a bunch of them and many do not translate into hospital. I only tested ones that use latin-based characters, and they translated into something else.
But yes, many are very similar to hospital.
Yes, some words are near universal, but obviously very few are because people in those languages cannot understand each other. You chose a word which is already universal. Does Esperanto follow that? No. Because it has rules which allow it to form the word without creating a new word, so why would you bother with "hospital" it's unnecessary.
You seem to think Esperanto was made like interlingua, or slovia, attempting to be immediately understandable by speakers of related languages, but it's not. it's a new language, with new words. Someone can look at "malsanulejo" and knowing the single 3 letter root and the 3 affixes can understand what it means. Of course people who do not speak Esperanto would not be able to understand that right away, however very basic lessons will be enough to understand it.
When dealing with non-universal words (most) Esperanto is great.
I know "ludo" is game, and can change the "-o" (noun) to "-as" (verb, present tense) and get play (ludas). I can add "-ej" in there to signify a place where people play (ludejo), or add "-ul" to show it's a gamer (ludulo).
malsanulejo: sano = health, malsano = sickness, malsanulo = sick person, malsanulejo = place of sick people
It doesn't matter if Esperanto doesn't have the same word as many other languages because it's just so damn easy to understand it once you have the basics.
And interlingua? A European creole. Understandable because you speak a similar language, makes sense when you use a few universal terms, but everyone chose English anyway. Creole form anyway, I could say "hospital" whether or not I spoke interlingua.
> Esperanto came first
Lojban came last. It is even harder to learn than Esperanto or IA and is even further away from the world's natural languaes, and is growing very fast. Obviously you are just making excuses for why interlingua isn't successful. No one speaks it because it isn't useful, and doesn't improve anything.
Funny thing is, it shouldn't matter how many people speak interlingua, should it? It's point is that it's mutually understandable to a good degree with most languages? Then it should be easy to get people to speak it, and yet no one does.
No one will understand Esperanto if first hearing it, because the latin roots are only the small core of the word. And yet people like it enough to speak it because of the grammar.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,461
My only issue with Esperanto is that the philosophy behind it is way dated. I struggle to see how it could appeal to anyone except ideological dinosaurs. This is the post-modern age ffs. Lojban and Interlingua otoh are at least immediately useful; Lojban as an unambiguous and completely logical human language and Interlingua as a language immediately understandable by speakers of European languages.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #86,462
@previous (I)
If someone knows English already, they would be no better off knowing Interlingua.
Interlingua is barely understandable by speakers of any European language, and chances are high (whether you are are in France, Germany, Italy, or any other country) they would understand your English better.
People study English, they are saturated in it, and probably use it often.
Again, Interlingua sounds like it could be useful, but no one uses it for a reason. It doesn't work.
If someone knows English already, they would be no better off knowing Interlingua.
Interlingua is barely understandable by speakers of any European language, and chances are high (whether you are are in France, Germany, Italy, or any other country) they would understand your English better.
People study English, they are saturated in it, and probably use it often.
Again, Interlingua sounds like it could be useful, but no one uses it for a reason. It doesn't work.