Talk:191: Lojban

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8 --79.67.240.72 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

- What can we learn from this? - I've learned that unless you share your knowledge with others, the rest of your life will be very lonely and no one will understand you. - E-inspired (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

- What can we learn from 79.67.240.72? - That insults have no meaning, after you declaw them with reason. (Thank you Mr. 79.67.240.72) - E-inspired (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I did change the transcript to the words from the Lojban picture posted here. What the hell was this former text:

la .kiubal. cusku lu da'i ganai do crebi'o la lojban gi le se cusku be do cu mulno pavysmu je logji li'u
.i la .xekrimapku. cusku lu .i .ie ku'i cusku fi le prenu klesi poi certu la lojban li'u

--Dgbrt (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

- That's how a transcript would be written in a Lojban text; {.kiubal.}, for instance, is a Lojbanisation of "cueball", and {lu} and {li'u} are open/close quotation marks. It would have been right if this wiki was in Lojban, but since it's in English, it's debatable. I guess the current version is easier for the readership to read. 141.101.98.225 13:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy if you could do an explain on this. I just did check the transcript, and I am not native Lojban ;). So, if there are any important differences, it has to be explained here. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
This also could mean changing the transcript again, but then it has to be explained.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It also was not correct, as .xekrimapku. is not a legal cmene. Maybe "xekrimapuk."? 173.245.54.40 01:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I would really like to know which of the two alternative interpretations given in the entry text is actually supported by the Lojban translation, though... being a proclaimed unambiguous language and all 162.158.83.210 18:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

162.158.83.210, Lojban is syntactically unambiguous. It is not, and does not claim to be, semantically unambiguous. I don't think that's even possible. Even if Lojban was semantically unambiguous, there would still be multiple ways to translate it into English, another semantically ambiguous language. 172.68.174.82 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

They should call a problem like this the Lojban Effect 162.158.79.245 01:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)