Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:42667) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RRZi2-0003Wb-6e; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:27:18 -0800 Received: by vcbfk1 with SMTP id fk1sf4447008vcb.16 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:27:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RL16Fg1OAYP0wLgkHAqBSbKupv2+p9DONhXUj3HgxlI=; b=g2z+hQ2YHyxraY3VCI4qWLUZnAE82DaGnvGWnDuPaUTCiTeW3jDB4J76kMoTPm6CZO XOZe4PEuOXu5VEfCGcfrMUGsHPLbfnRo3788fvjnj9eB28LTlULcK+eNfhKaXc9JYzFp L2TqdcaGfVUG1RESfVoswdxG26moge5AapSto= Received: by 10.52.97.3 with SMTP id dw3mr2568863vdb.16.1321666021159; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:27:01 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.142.67 with SMTP id p3ls5141904vcu.1.gmail; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.88.164 with SMTP id bh4mr7880485vdb.8.1321666020776; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.88.164 with SMTP id bh4mr7880484vdb.8.1321666020766; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmfepo103.cox.net (eastrmfepo103.cox.net. [68.230.241.215]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id b8si1232389vdu.2.2011.11.18.17.27.00; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.215; Received: from eastrmimpo210.cox.net ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20111119012700.GVAO28068.eastrmfepo103.cox.net@eastrmimpo210.cox.net> for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:27:00 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo210.cox.net with bizsmtp id ypSt1h0012AfMYu02pStwg; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:26:59 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020208.4EC705E3.00CB,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=De1JiIk2RxanYFgc+XGFICsyHMGw9Zzh53vWvxwLytc= c=1 sm=1 a=dYDkaTZZu5wA:10 a=LNyRDDSfcIoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=go80hNZvmTzfaV7xMz8A:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4EC705DD.8060202@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:26:53 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like References: <1321501066.64722.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1321633769.30584.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1321640207.88557.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / John E. Clifford wrote: > We're actually on about Logjam vii going back to 1955. That is the direc= t line with JCB or LLG in charge. I know of maybe half a dozen spinoffs, = none of the very active, and I don't know what has happened over at Loglan.= We're about par for the course, with Lojban as a more successful Ido. Loj= ban took some, but not all, of the next Loglan suggestions, added a few new= ones, and threw out a few things. And has done more alteration since. > {zilni,'I} is still linked to logical necessity, which is rarely the inte= resting case (all S5 and the like). Jim Carter's guaspi was the first attempt to reform Lojban, though=20 Prothero threw in planb at some point. The bottom line is that we've learned how hard it is to deisgn and=20 document a language. I don't think the project could complete a new=20 complete do-over (and remember that Lojban was itself never intended to=20 be a complete do-over, but an evasion of JCB's intellectual property=20 claims - we re-did a lot as a result, but maintaining the conceptual=20 status quo was a top priority). If it ever is done, a re-do should be done by a mass of fluent=20 Lojbanists working solely in that language to prevent malglico and as=20 much malrarna as possible. lojbab --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.