lojban and Klingon: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
If it may be argued that different conlangs are in competition for the same audience of potential learners (which is not in itself a given), then [[jbocre: Klingon|Klingon]] poses a much more visible threat to Lojban than do other [[jbocre: conlang|conlang]]s, including [[jbocre: Esperanto|Esperanto]]. Klingon has glamour and visual media on its side (which Lojban does not, and will not), as well as being a conlang rather unlike English (which is also a selling point of Lojban), but not extremely difficult to master (which is not a selling point of Lojban).
If it may be argued that different conlangs are in competition for the same audience of potential learners (which is not in itself a given), then [[jbocre: Klingon|Klingon]] poses a much more visible threat to Lojban than do other [[jbocre: conlang|conlang]]s, including [[jbocre: Esperanto|Esperanto]]. Klingon has glamour and visual media on its side (which Lojban does not, and will not), as well as being a conlang rather unlike English (which is also a selling point of Lojban), but not extremely difficult to master (which is not a selling point of Lojban).


Its culture is small but vibrant, and translations of "Hamlet" and "Gilgamesh" have already appeared in book form. Prominent Lojbanists [[User:Nick Nicholas|Nick Nicholas]] [[User:Mark Shoulson|Mark Shoulson]] were involved in the former.
Its culture is small but vibrant, and translations of "Hamlet" and "Gilgamesh" have already appeared in book form. Prominent Lojbanists [[User:Nick Nicholas|Nick Nicholas]] and [[User:Mark Shoulson|Mark Shoulson]] were involved in the former.


Though Lojbanic culture need not follow the fannish model of language development, it should find food for thought in such lavishly detailed tomes as "The Klingon Way" (a collection of fictional proverbs) and "Klingon for the Galactic Traveller" (a disquisition into much fictional Klingon culture and associated idioms)...
Though Lojbanic culture need not follow the fannish model of language development, it should find food for thought in such lavishly detailed tomes as "The Klingon Way" (a collection of fictional proverbs) and "Klingon for the Galactic Traveller" (a disquisition into much fictional Klingon culture and associated idioms)...

Revision as of 10:33, 21 March 2014

i bangu fa lo bangrtlingana noi du lo bantuluxe

If it may be argued that different conlangs are in competition for the same audience of potential learners (which is not in itself a given), then Klingon poses a much more visible threat to Lojban than do other conlangs, including Esperanto. Klingon has glamour and visual media on its side (which Lojban does not, and will not), as well as being a conlang rather unlike English (which is also a selling point of Lojban), but not extremely difficult to master (which is not a selling point of Lojban).

Its culture is small but vibrant, and translations of "Hamlet" and "Gilgamesh" have already appeared in book form. Prominent Lojbanists Nick Nicholas and Mark Shoulson were involved in the former.

Though Lojbanic culture need not follow the fannish model of language development, it should find food for thought in such lavishly detailed tomes as "The Klingon Way" (a collection of fictional proverbs) and "Klingon for the Galactic Traveller" (a disquisition into much fictional Klingon culture and associated idioms)...

The two languages are complementary in a different way (than Lojban and Esperanto) - Lojban is thought to be serious and scientific, Klingon frivolous and fantastical. But this disregards the amount of hard work that was necessary to give Klingon the usability it now possesses (for it was never intended as a real conlang, in the beginning), and also the unacknowledged amount of fantasy and frivolity in Lojban culture.

Lojban and Klingon are completely different in their design philosophies. The point of Klingon is to zealously stick to the canon created by Mark Okrand. The point of Lojban is to create a complete, interesting, logical language, whose design principles are not arbitrary. Does this underlie la .nitcion.'s extreme hardlinerism?

  • nitcion:
    Easier to explain through Esperanto's "Netusxebla Fundamento", actually. Especially considering that hardlinerism isn't the same as fundamentalism, which is what the sort of thing you're postulating would engender. The forward to Esperanto's "Fundamento" says: "The Fundamento must stay strictly untouchable, even along with its errors." ("La fundamento devas resti severe netusxebla ecx kune kun siaj eraroj"). This may be very sensible for Esperanto, but it's just plain silly for Lojban.