From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Dec 05 23:36:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 07:36:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 26007 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 07:36:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 07:36:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 07:36:34 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021206073633.BNXZ2204.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 02:36:33 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206021824.03a3ab10@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 02:25:58 -0500 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Loglan In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 02:58 AM 12/6/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: >Bob McIvor: > > On Mercredi, d=E9ce 4, 2002, at 19:52 US/Eastern, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > Bob McIvor: > > >> Most newcomers to TLI have looked at both languages before deciding > > >> to go with TLI > > > > > > I'm curious as to what their reasons were. Do you know? > > > > One commonly expressed reason is the appearance of the written > > language. Another is the proliferation of cmavo > > whose semantics and usage, are constantly debated > >Is this because fewer people are around to debate Loglan cmavo, or >because debate happens behind closed doors, or because the semantics >and usage of Loglan cmavo is more settled? If Loglan is more settled, >how was that achieved? And do you think that BF should consult >Loglan solutions for insights? Bob can of course clarify his intent, but my correspondence suggests to me= =20 that the mere fact that we expend so many hot electrons debating things=20 gives the impression that Lojban is unstable and everchanging (and also=20 that we are a bunch of intolerant and verbose hotheads). TLI Loglan, even= =20 though it is less committed to stability, had little or no debate (other=20 than perhaps in the Academy), public or private - people were used to=20 accepting decrees from God aka JCB. I suspect that TLI has incorporated few solutions that we would find=20 insightful, if we are considering solutions, all possibilities are worthy=20 of consideration, and one that might have seen usage in their community has= =20 slightly more credibility than an arbitrarily invented new concept that no= =20 one has actually tried to use. That is one reason why I thought Bob's=20 participation in the byfy would be useful. lojbab --=20 lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org