> I thought his question was "I heard that Loglan : Lojban :: Esperanto : Ido.
> Is that true?" That is, asking about the relationship rather than the
> language itself.
The FAQ does adresses the question, but it gives almost no information as to why the two groups split up. Did they disagree about some Loglan feature? Was it about the way the Loglan Institute was being run?
Also, I would like to know what are the differences between Loglan and Lojban as to linguistics.
I agree with Robin when he says that Esperanto is a "mushing of European languages". It is kind of arrogant that it tries to pass itself as the "solution to the language problem". That's what caught my attention at first about Lojban: it is "more neutral" than Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Glosa and others.
By the way, I'd like to congratulate Robin and Nick about their great introduction to the language! :-)
João Ricardo Oliveira