Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:13:44 -0700
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:12:56 -0400
From: turnip <turnip@bcpl.net>
To: jbovlaste <jbovlaste@lojban.org>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: jbovlaste erroneously states original creator as the person who edited a definition
Message-ID: <47033EE0@webmail.bcpl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1339
Lines: 34

to xelfanva seva'u lo prenu poi na'e selbau la gliban toi
go'i ji'una'iku .i  lo ka ce'u banro je selci'i pe la lojban simsa lo 
falrenzdi
lo ka ponse so'i jipno .i ui le'i jipno cu terpoi lo ka galtu

          --gejyspa

>===== Original Message From "Matt Arnold" <matt.mattarn@gmail.com> =====
>Actually, Lojban growth and popularity is like a roller coaster. It
>has many zeniths. The good news is that each zenith has been higher
>than the last, so it's trending upward.
>
>-Matt
>
>On 9/23/07, Matthias-Christian Ott <matthias.christian@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:47:13PM +0200, Matthias-Christian Ott

>>

>> Anyhow I'm at Lojban level 0 and currently thinking about buying the
>> reference grammar to learn it. But it seems (in my opinion) that Lojban
>> has reached its popularity and usage zenith some years ago and is now
>> dieing. I'm really interested in it, but a dieing language isn't very
>> useful and doing a lot of work for some remaining freaks of the Lojban
>> community who in fact don't need it is a waste of time. If Lojban is
>> going to expand and will stay vivid, it would be worth the efforts, but
>> for me it seems that Lojban infrastructure is owned by a few people who
>> decide on its future. I don't know if I would really like to learn and
>> "propagate" Lojban in this case.