From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 06 12:30:30 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KP7B-0001XM-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:30:25 -0800 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:30:25 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Some concerns from a Lojban beginner Message-ID: <20021206203025.GL28980@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <1FD5CBE3-079C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1FD5CBE3-079C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 3155 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:21:56AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: > IMO, whatever the political motivations, Lojban loses by being defined > publicly in terms of Loglan. Think how many sleeper cells you pick up > by saying Lojban is a Loglan --- and then consider how much damage is > done when Don Harlow, in his description of conlangs, sneeringly > refers to "Loglan and its offshoot, Lojban." I hadn't thought about it that way before. I think I agree. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi