From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Dec 10 11:47:25 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:47:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05)
	id 18LqLi-0003Tx-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:47:22 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:47:22 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags)
Message-ID: <20021210194722.GQ11342@digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20021210185519.GO11342@digitalkingdom.org> <20021210135837.Q6796-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20021210135837.Q6796-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 3409
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 Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:59:24PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:13:30PM +0200, robin wrote:
> > > Adam Raizen wrote:
> > > >la djorden. cusku di'e
> > > >
> > > >>I'm not a LLG member, so I can't official propose this for the
> > > >>next meeting (afaik).  However, as a member of the community I
> > > >>would like to ask that at the next LLG meeting the "lojban is
> > > >>loglan" statement be considered for revokation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >There was a very difficult and expensive legal battle fought over
> > > >this, and those who participated in it would probably not want
> > > >their effort to be nullified, and historically Lojban is related
> > > >to Loglan, so at least for those reasons it would probably be
> > > >difficult to straight-out revoke the "lojban is loglan"
> > > >statement. I think that a clarification is in order, though.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How about something like "Lojban is a variant of Loglan".  Or
> > > "development" or whatever.
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> 
> Or that Lojban is a language in the Lojban family.

Was the redundancy in that sentence deliberate or accidental?

-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