This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Article development
Writing better articles
Avoid weasel words
Explain jargon
Layout
Footnotes
Citing sources
Text formatting
Headings
Phonology & Orthography (CLL3)
Syntax and semantics: selbri (CLL5)
Syntax: sumti, descriptions, individuals, masses, sets, vocative phrases, names (CLL6)
Syntax: sumti and selbri
Syntax: complex sumti
Syntax: attachments to sumti, selbri and sentences
Syntax: pro-sumti, pro-bridi (CLL7)
Syntax: relative clauses/phrases, possessive sumti (CLL8)
Syntax: tagging places, conversion, sentence connection, modal selbri, modal relative phrases, modal negation (CLL9)
Syntax: sentence structures
Syntax: logical/non-logical connectives (CLL14)
Syntax: logical connectives
Syntax: abstraction (events, qualities, quantities, truth-value, sentence...), indirect question, sumti raising (CLL11)
Syntax: negation (CLL15)
Syntax: existential claims, prenexes, variables, universal claims, restricted claims, negation boundaries, selbri variables (CLL16)
Syntax: mathematical expressions (CLL18)
Syntax: structure of texts (CLL19)
Semantics: tenses (CLL10)
Semantics: lujvo/tanru/gismu place structures, comparatives & superlatives (CLL12)
Semantics: emotion and attitudinal indicators (CLL13)
Linguistic issues pertaining to Lojban
Vocabularly (jbovlaste)
Vocabularly (gismu)
Vocabularly (cmavo)
Compound (linguistics)
Semantics
Syntax
Formal grammar
In the Lojban comunity it is common for Lojbanists to bracket Lojban words or phrases like e.g. {coi do ma nuzba}; on this article, the editors (including myself) seem to agree on using italic form instead of brackets, so like e.g. coi do ma nuzba. The English translations, on the other hand, normally have double quotation marks, e.g. "Hi, what's up?". Translations, however, may be without such markings when it is obvious (see the example below). These styles are in accordance with the convention of other language articles.
For the sample texts I have experimented to use colour codes which slightly differentiates the sample's visual appearance from the main paragraph:
The bolds simply indicate the parts on which the discussion is focusing (this example is from the section "tenses"). This, I hope, would give rise to readability. The colour code is #506060.-- Mednak 10:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The previous discussions on the content of this article can be found in the archives of Talk:Lojban. -- Mednak 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have fairly good linguistic knowledge and yet despite having read this article on a number of occasions, I cannot make head-nor-tail of it; it is appallingly written in a way that is impenetrable. I believe it needs to be re-written in a style that is understandable for anyone wanting to know about the language can understand.
I'm no linguist and are therefore not accostumed with linguistic vocabulary. Thus I ask. Is phonology and orthography really a part of the grammar? -- Emuzesto 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
the head section (or intro, or whatever) sounds really pro-lojban, without sources. Esperanto, for instance, is referred to as "experimental" despite the fact that Esperanto is use more widely that lojban. Could someone clean this up to keep things accurate? Sonicsuns 06:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Pro-Lojban? Aren't all IALs experimental? Cosman246 ( talk) 22:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There are several empty sections. Could an expert Lojbanist fix them please? Cosman246 ( talk) 21:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I’ve removed the example from Arabic because it is simply wrong. ما عِندِي قَلَمُ absolutely cannot be glossed as I | not have | a pen (SVO), and the analogy with the Lojban sentence is completely wrong. -- Babelfisch ( talk) 03:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This article should not be exclusively written in the Lojban community jargon, but also provide a standard linguistic analysis in standard linguistic terms (e.g. bridi → phrase, sumti → argument, selbri → predicate, brivla → verb, cmavo → particle, cmene → noun, gismu → root, lujvo → compound, fu’ila → loanword, tanru → serial verb / compound verb, rafsi → derived form / combining form, etc.). Hasn’t this been done before? (Any “outside” sources? As it is now, this looks a bit like a cult, not a language.) -- Babelfisch ( talk) 07:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What purpose does it serve? It teaches no one anything about Lojban grammar (the thing this article is about), so why's it there? 50.49.147.29 ( talk) 01:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Lojban has a formal grammar which does not proscribe all the strings of words that a human would consider ungrammatical. One can say things like "*Either he and I will go". Some of these grammatical, but nonsensical, constructions are:
It's impossible to understand the examples since almost all of them are without translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.128.108.56 ( talk) 00:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
All but one example does not parse, and the one that does parse only does so incidentally due to its use of `lo'u`-`le'u` quotes which do not require the inner contents to be grammatically correct. Additionally, many of the translations are wrong. Matt-bacon-bcm ( talk) 04:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)