From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Dec 10 11:17:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 19:17:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 33528 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 19:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 19:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 19:17:23 -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 <20021210191723.THNY2204.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:17:23 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021210132407.03166ca0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:57:38 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tags In-Reply-To: References: <20021210034933.GH11342@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 04:39 AM 12/10/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote: > > If the board ever requests that I do this, I will immediately resign as > > webmaster. > >That would be a shame, for Robin has done an excellent job with the web >site. Yes he has. Which is why he has little to fear us giving him reason to resign. >I am quite fascinated with the hostility expressed towards TLI Loglan. I don't think there is much hostility towards TLI Loglan. I think there is absolute indiffrence to TLI Loglan, and hostility towards YOU for trying to make an issue of something that the people in question had already settled in their mind. To them, if they accept that TLI Loglan is a significant part of the heritage of Lojban, this means no more to them than Anglo-Saxon is a significant part of the heritage of English. "So what?" "Well there are all these Frisians out there that speak a dialect that is almost like English". "So what? They can learn English - I'm not interested in learning Frisian". The historical roots of Lojban don't matter to them any more than the historical roots of English matter to most English speakers. Many Lojbanists are no more interested in TLI Loglan, than they are in any other artificial language. They may view an obsession with the historical roots of the language like they view an obsession with auxiliary languages: a waste of time. We can convince them to reach out a welcoming hand to TLI Loglanists who want to become Lojbanists, but only because they want to become Lojbanists. They gain no special privileged status for having supported the other language: what have they done for Lojban? I respect your desire to reach out to the TLI Loglan community, whether it be the small number working with the current language, or the hundreds left by the wayside in the last 5 decades. But your concept of Internet marketing is offensive to some in this community and possibly the other one as well, can be seen as competitive poaching on TLI while it remains still alive (thereby discouraging them from cooperating with us), thus offending some of the very Loglanists you might wish to recruit. >The original reasons for this hostility are gone. There never was hostility to the TLI Loglan language. There was hostility between JCB and myself and the other founders of LLG, hostility that had been downplayed to almost nonexistence by the time JCB had died, though JCB apparently left some pretty strong strictures against my ever being involved in TLI in any way (not that I'd have interest in same). There is hostility to the whole game of "my language is better than yours" which is endemic to the artificial language community. Lojbanists are either interested in a variety of constructed languages, or they are interested in only one, Lojban, and don't even want to hear about any others. > This hostility is now counterproductive. What explains this bizarre > xenophobia? I think it is distractophobia. People want to move beyond what any connection with Loglan connotes for them. >What explains the insertion of the phrase "lojban is Loglan" in lojban >official >policy? (I am aware of the history of this phrase, I am asking whether >there is a deeper explanation than the historical animus of that legal >battle.) Was this some kind of "language murder"? No. And indeed on rereading the 1991 minutes, I find that the phrase was in fact never adopted. Everyone believed it but we avoided officially adopting the words: >Negotiations with the Institute: > >Agreements made at members meeting authorizing the split were re-read. It >was noted that we never got a positive response to our proposals. > >Discussion of "Do we still want to reconcile?" and "What would our aim >be?"; the latter especially in the light of the fact that we have both >gone public already. > >Art Weiners wishes it noted in the minutes that he would not vote the same >on item #3 (at that member's meeting) now as he did then. > >Much discussion and motions/amendments on actual wording of policy >regarding reconciliation. The original version was: > * MOVED: That: >A) The policy of LLG be to continue to express an expressed desire of >reconciliation with JCB and the Institute. >B) There no longer be any special authority given to the pronouncements of >JCB or the Institute about the language. and >C) Lojban is Loglan. > >Much of the discussion was on point C: over whether they could/would be >considered "fighting words"; whether we would be seen as not believing >that "Loglan" is validly applied to our language. The sense of the >attendees seemed to be that we did indeed believe that "Lojban is Loglan" >(or at least "... a Loglan"), but that, if they might be considered >fighting words, they would be counter-productive in a policy that >expresses a desire for reconciliation. This is all the secretary's reading >of what happened, put in for the benefit of those who were not present in >order that they understand the areas of controversy; there may be >differences of opinion with this reading. > >The final result was: > * MOVED: That: >A) Expending resources towards a reconciliation with JCB or the Institute >is not a good use of resources at this time, but we remain open to such a >reconciliation should their position change in the future. and >B) There no longer be any special authority given to the pronouncements of >JCB or the Institute about the language. - PASSED. In other words, the "Lojban is Loglan" vote basically said that we were going to put TLI and Loglan behind us. We weren't going to care about Loglan any more EXCEPT insofar as they made moves for reconciliation. Well, since JCB died, there has been a change in policy, and moves towards cooperation and reconciliation, but they are not enough for most people to want to resurrect the past. >Is this shared revulsion towards Loglan by so many newbies a solidarity >ritual? The revulsion is toward CARING about Loglan, which the "newbies" (who of course are making Lojban a real language) find irrelevant. >How very tribal! Can we link it somehow to the upcoming winter solstice? >Maybe we should all get tatooed or branded "mi lojbo"! Perhaps the most >interesting observations about Loglan will be related to schisms and >vestigial primitive thinking rather than to Sapir-Whorf. Insulting your fellow Lojbanists is not likely to get them to share your viewpoint. lojbab -- 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