From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Sun Dec 01 16:49:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Dec 2002 00:49:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 16105 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 00:49:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 00:49:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 00:49:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Ielm-0000Yi-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:49:06 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Ielg-0000YR-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:49:00 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IelZ-0000YI-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:48:53 -0800 Received: (qmail 25636 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 00:48:51 -0000 Received: from dial0-268.dialin.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.172.85) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 00:48:51 -0000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:48:52 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org To: xod@thestonecutters.net In-Reply-To: <20021201190611.V52499-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 2848 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Steven Belknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:19 PM, Invent Yourself wrote: >>> So this discussion is logically null. You want to patch over the >>> schism, but you claim to realize that there is in fact no way to >>> merge >>> the two languages, making the idea of schism resolution is >>> meaningless. You argue vociferously in the interest of an invisible, >>> silent population -- Loglanists who now have a new interest in >>> Lojban. >>> You have argued for but then de-emphasized that toggle cmavo. You >>> have >>> complained about your lost Loglan efforts, but then claimed to have >>> forgotten most of your Loglan anyway. And you want to convince >>> newbies >>> of the changelessness of Lojban by offering to change it for them. >> >> Maybe you ought to switch to decaf. > > Try posting other than such this tangled mess of non sequiturs, > shifting > goals, outright contradictions, and cheap shots, and I won't be driven > to > drink! The non-sequiturs, shifting goals, and outright contradictions are present only in your distorted, unfair summaries of my opinions. I never advocated merging the languages, only in finding a way to facilitate the transition from Loglan to lojban. I *did* feel unhappy about my lost Loglan efforts and *have* since forgotten most of my loglan vocabulary - these are not mutually incompatible. I have not suggested changing lojban, other than to express mild support for the toggling cmavo. The toggling cmavo might help Loglanders to transition to lojban. Perhaps there are other mechanisms which would be more effective for expanding the lojban community, but I believe the downside of a toggling cmavo is virtually nil. Certainly, if the toggling cmavo would "break" lojban, it should not be adopted. A language requires a community of speakers in order to thrive. Loglanders are more likely than practically anybody else to have some interest in lojban. Helping lojban to thrive is my goal, which has not shifted whatsoever. Your goals are unclear to me. Are they clear to you? If so, could you share them with us? -Steven