<p>One of Lojban's most famous features is, of course, its lack of syntactic ambiguity. While this is an advantage in some cases, it can also be a limitation. It wouldn't likely be an issue in something like Wikipedia, but does make certain kinds of wordplay impossible. Take for example this exchange from Lewis Carroll's <a href="http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/resources/chapters-script/through-the-looking-glass/" rel="noreferrer"><em>Through the Looking Glass</em></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>'Who did you pass on the road?' the King went on, holding out his hand
  to the Messenger for some more hay.</p>
  
  <p>'Nobody,' said the Messenger.</p>
  
  <p>'Quite right,' said the King: 'this young lady saw him too. So of
  course Nobody walks slower than you.'</p>
  
  <p>'I do my best,' the Messenger said in a sulky tone. 'I'm sure nobody
  walks much faster than I do!'</p>
  
  <p>'He can't do that,' said the King, 'or else he'd have been here first.'</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In Lojban there is no way to conflate "nobody" meaning "no person" with "Nobody" meaning "someone named Nobody", because proper names are always preceded with the article "la". Other works that rely on wordplay based in syntactic ambiguity would also present major difficulties in translating to Lojban. </p>

<p>That said, there <em>is</em> a <a href="http://alis.lojban.org/" rel="noreferrer">Lojban translation of <em>Alice in Wonderland</em></a>, so these difficulties aren't necessarily insurmountable.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-21T19:24:21.433Z
But some languages also are unable to translate it and would explain the English version. In that way, Lojban is like those languages and the difference is not per se constructed but natural too.
Duncan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-06T02:02:05.613Z
@Duncan that is true, but I suppose those languages have their own wordplays. Lojban theoretically would not be able to have any wordplay like this, right?
Nacht
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T08:33:35.153Z
2018-02-14T08:33:35.153Z
kristan
<h1>Length</h1>
<p>A few things. First, Lojban often needs longer sentences to express something than it does in, for example, English.</p>
<h1>Vocabulary</h1>
<p>Secondly, Lojban's vocabulary isn't that big, especially in the domain of sciences. Words would have to be calqued, adapted from English, French, etc. or completely re-invented.</p>
<h1>Loaning and naming</h1>
<p>Thirdly, the English language (and many natural languages) loans words directly (for example, <em>champagne</em> could be *shampain and <em>buoy</em> could be *boy or *boi) without changing spelling (a slight counterexample would be German, which often changes the letter c pronounced [k] to the letter k, like <em>Kanada</em> and <em>Vokabular</em>).</p>
<p>Lojban doesn't. <em>.romas.</em> is Rome (Italy), <em>.xavanas.</em> is Havanas (Cuba) and <em>.lidz.</em> is Leeds (UK). This makes it confusing in some cases. How would Lojban adapt <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turra_Coo" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Turra Coo</a> or people like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela</a>? The name should stay recognisable but pronounceable.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-23T08:47:39.497Z
Also, not more puns with Lojban.
Duncan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-16T20:29:40.600Z
I don't see how any of these are limitations with Lojban specifically. The length of a translated text is always going to vary from the source, and may often be longer because you have to include fluff to express information you naturally express in one language but not the other. Vocabulary can be built on, especially with compound words and loans. Why should loanwords be spelled the same as their source language, and trick readers into horribly mispronouncing names? I spell "karate", not 空手道. I also wish to see how you would translate that quote in any naturalistic language.
TUSF
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-02-23T22:32:37.123Z
Why is Romas confusing and Rome isn't for a place named Roma?
prosfilaes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-14T18:26:37.967Z
@prosfilaes It's _.romas._, not _Romas_. Lojban doesn't use capital letters and cmene/names must be surrounded with periods. Also, there's no consistency with this sort of borrowing. On Lojban Wikipedia, the name Wikipedia is variously rendered as _.uitkipediias._, _.uikipedi'as._, and _.uikipidi,ys._, among others.
OpenAI was the last straw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-14T21:11:43.403Z
@AndrewRay Then it's .romas. versus .rome. Again, the city's name in Italian is Roma. Havana in Spanish is "La Habana". There would be no consistency if everyone just named these places like they are in their native tongue, either. More standard transliterations would helpful, but that's a choice, not a limitation.
prosfilaes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-09T01:23:27.677Z
Actually, buoy would be *booee, not *boy. At least here in America
No Name
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-13T21:39:04.670Z
And though Lojban handles such slightly modified loans (called stage-2 fu'ivla), loaning many words would be a bit lameful, since Lojban has also a system to build compound words from native root-words.
mklcp
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-02-12T17:12:08.417Z
2022-02-13T18:53:14.560Z
2022-02-13T18:53:14.560Z
Duncan
<p>Suppose we want to translate the whole of Wikipedia from English into <a href="https://jbo.wikipedia.org/" rel="noreferrer">Lojban</a>, what are the main known big limitations or concerns we should be aware of? In other words, does Lojban as a language have sufficient expressive power for being translated from English?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-09T18:30:07.130Z
One limitation: I'm reluctant to study it because I find its words ugly.
Anton Sherwood
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T23:35:09.323Z
There is a [Lojban Wikipedia](https://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/uikipedi'as:ralju).
Corbin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T12:53:12.350Z
[A considerable amount of texts](https://mw.lojban.org/papri/te_gerna_la_lojban) (from a conlang point of view) has been translated to lojban; perhaps it doesn't answer you answer, but it's at least convincing.
mklcp
<lojban><translation>
What are the main limitations of Lojban?
# What are the main limitations of Lojban?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-08)

Suppose we want to translate the whole of Wikipedia from English into [Lojban](https://jbo.wikipedia.org/), what are the main known big limitations or concerns we should be aware of? In other words, does Lojban as a language have sufficient expressive power for being translated from English?

**Tags:** lojban, translation
> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: There is a [Lojban Wikipedia](https://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/uikipedi'as:ralju).  
> **username_3**: [A considerable amount of texts](https://mw.lojban.org/papri/te_gerna_la_lojban) (from a conlang point of view) has been translated to lojban; perhaps it doesn't answer you answer, but it's at least convincing.  
> **username_1**: One limitation: I'm reluctant to study it because I find its words ugly.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-02-12. Score: 13 | Accepted answer

# Length

A few things. First, Lojban often needs longer sentences to express something than it does in, for example, English.

# Vocabulary

Secondly, Lojban's vocabulary isn't that big, especially in the domain of sciences. Words would have to be calqued, adapted from English, French, etc. or completely re-invented.

# Loaning and naming

Thirdly, the English language (and many natural languages) loans words directly (for example, *champagne* could be \*shampain and *buoy* could be \*boy or \*boi) without changing spelling (a slight counterexample would be German, which often changes the letter c pronounced [k] to the letter k, like *Kanada* and *Vokabular*).

Lojban doesn't. *.romas.* is Rome (Italy), *.xavanas.* is Havanas (Cuba) and *.lidz.* is Leeds (UK). This makes it confusing in some cases. How would Lojban adapt [Turra Coo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turra_Coo) or people like [Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela)? The name should stay recognisable but pronounceable.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: And though Lojban handles such slightly modified loans (called stage-2 fu'ivla), loaning many words would be a bit lameful, since Lojban has also a system to build compound words from native root-words.  
> **username_5**: Also, not more puns with Lojban.  
> **username_7**: I don't see how any of these are limitations with Lojban specifically. The length of a translated text is always going to vary from the source, and may often be longer because you have to include fluff to express information you naturally express in one language but not the other. Vocabulary can be built on, especially with compound words and loans. Why should loanwords be spelled the same as their source language, and trick readers into horribly mispronouncing names? I spell "karate", not 空手道. I also wish to see how you would translate that quote in any naturalistic language.  
> **username_8**: Why is Romas confusing and Rome isn't for a place named Roma?  
> **username_9**: @prosfilaes It's _.romas._, not _Romas_. Lojban doesn't use capital letters and cmene/names must be surrounded with periods. Also, there's no consistency with this sort of borrowing. On Lojban Wikipedia, the name Wikipedia is variously rendered as _.uitkipediias._, _.uikipedi'as._, and _.uikipidi,ys._, among others.  
> **username_8**: @AndrewRay Then it's .romas. versus .rome. Again, the city's name in Italian is Roma. Havana in Spanish is "La Habana". There would be no consistency if everyone just named these places like they are in their native tongue, either. More standard transliterations would helpful, but that's a choice, not a limitation.  
> **username_10**: Actually, buoy would be *booee, not *boy. At least here in America  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-02-14. Score: 11

One of Lojban's most famous features is, of course, its lack of syntactic ambiguity. While this is an advantage in some cases, it can also be a limitation. It wouldn't likely be an issue in something like Wikipedia, but does make certain kinds of wordplay impossible. Take for example this exchange from Lewis Carroll's [*Through the Looking Glass*](http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/resources/chapters-script/through-the-looking-glass/):

> 'Who did you pass on the road?' the King went on, holding out his hand
> to the Messenger for some more hay.
>
> 'Nobody,' said the Messenger.
>
> 'Quite right,' said the King: 'this young lady saw him too. So of
> course Nobody walks slower than you.'
>
> 'I do my best,' the Messenger said in a sulky tone. 'I'm sure nobody
> walks much faster than I do!'
>
> 'He can't do that,' said the King, 'or else he'd have been here first.'

In Lojban there is no way to conflate "nobody" meaning "no person" with "Nobody" meaning "someone named Nobody", because proper names are always preceded with the article "la". Other works that rely on wordplay based in syntactic ambiguity would also present major difficulties in translating to Lojban.

That said, there *is* a [Lojban translation of *Alice in Wonderland*](http://alis.lojban.org/), so these difficulties aren't necessarily insurmountable.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: But some languages also are unable to translate it and would explain the English version. In that way, Lojban is like those languages and the difference is not per se constructed but natural too.  
> **username_6**: @Duncan that is true, but I suppose those languages have their own wordplays. Lojban theoretically would not be able to have any wordplay like this, right?  

---

