>>>What I was trying to say (and apparently didn't express well) >>>was that, in an audio CD course, it would be easier to learn the Lojban >>>terminology a little at a time after teaching some phrases and >>>vocabulary. >> >> What I was trying to say is that I'd rather not learn the >> grammar at all -- I'd just like to learn to speak it. That's >> the real test of a language anyway. All of you who are interested >> in testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can't hope to get any data >> before people are speaking it fluently. > >I'm sympathetic to this, but I think a conlang is different from a >natural lang in a practical sense. > >Lojban is no one's "native" language, and no one learns it as a >first language in infancy. (So far...)
I'm looking at having another baby in the next couple of years. So try to butter me up. :) >It might be possible to learn a language as an adult using "pre- >linguistic" techniques, but I've never heard of it being done in >a pure sense. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but people visiting foreign countries can and do pick up languages using nothing but their motor cortices and auditory midbrains. Or something. And if half of the advocacy that is (or was) at lojban.org is true, the same ought to be possible with lojban. -Carl
