From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Sun Dec 01 20:31:15 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 04:31:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 35935 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 04:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 04:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 04:31:15 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IiEk-0001bO-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:31:14 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IiEe-0001b7-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:31:08 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:31:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from birch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.162]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IiEW-0001ay-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:31:00 -0800 Received: (qmail 5027 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 04:30:55 -0000 Received: from dial0-127.dialin.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.170.160) by birch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 04:30:55 -0000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:30:59 -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: <20021201195046.R52499-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 2860 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 07:16 PM, Invent Yourself wrote: > You wrote: > > "I can not support a lojban baseline policy statement which does not > cover > Loglan. A joint lojban/Loglan toggling cmavo would satisfy me." > > Threatening to reject the new policy is hardly "expressing mild > support". I expressed mild support for a toggling cmavo, one possible means of addressing the Loglan issue. I also expressed a willingness to consider other possible means of addressing the Loglan issue. I have already voted "no" to the proposed baseline policy statement because it completely ignores Loglan. The lojban community cannot on the one hand say "lojban is Loglan" and on the other hand completely ignore Loglan in its policy statements. > Now, the current baseline does not "reflect" Loglan. You want the next > one > to. That would require a change; a difference between the two. So you > are > suggesting changing Lojban, unless now you want to tire me with a long > argument about how the Lojban language is somehow distinct from the > baseline, and that you can alter the latter without affecting the > former. There are several ways to address the Loglan issue. The toggling cmavo would be one way to do this. I mildly support the toggling cmavo. I strongly oppose completely ignoring Loglan. > And if you want to encourage the use of a crazy-quilt pidgin of Loglan > and > Lojban mixed in the same sentences, with Lojban cmavo and Loglan gismu, > facilitated by rich use of the toggle you advocate, in order to pander > to > people who in theory don't actually want to learn Lojban and in fact > have > yet to make their presence known, with the hope of inflating the > "numbers" > of "Lojban" speakers, or win the ludicrous propaganda coup of > rapproachment to impress a bystander population of conlangers who don't > really give a damn, and you think such a monstrosity would make life > EASIER for newbies, I lack the time to refute this on its multiple > levels > of sickness. This is an instance of the logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. > I'm sure the significance of the fact that there are no Loglanists > voicing > their support for any of your measures, while one newbie has already > announced discomfort at this Loglan talk is completely lost on you. Go > right on believing that you're defending the interests of newcomers. Silence could be disinterest, as you suggest. Or perhaps it is a lack of awareness that lojban exists. >> 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? > > My goal is to resist any efforts to tamper with the Lojban baseline to > kowtow to a constituency that has never been heard from, in ways that > would be inappropriate even it existed and was clamoring for it. I am a part of the constituency of Loglanders who are now lojbanistani. I believe there are others who shared my interest in Loglan and would now share my interest in lojban. I believe that addressing the Loglan/lojban schism in some manner would reassure others like me who have not yet joined the lojban community. Who are you to contradict my point-of-view? Did you memorize all the predicates of Loglan only to find those predicates discarded in toto? How does your hostility further your stated goal of preserving the lojban baseline? -Steven