From clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 21 08:41:55 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:41:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81305.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.80]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D3Gd1-0003C8-AD for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:41:47 -0800 Message-ID: <20050221164116.50682.qmail@web81305.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.50.222] by web81305.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:41:16 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:41:16 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: blast from the past To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 9508 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Totally off the controversy. The post-1975 growth of Loglan brought in at least a dozen people who were drawn by the Heinlein. They by and large did not go looking for Loglan because of the reference (and they wouldn't have found it if they had) but responded to the announcement when it came because they remembered the Heinlein. This was a larger group than (or maybe just the same size as) the group who were following up on the 1960 SA article (in spite of the fact that the announcement was primarily in SA). Unlike Esperanto, almost none of the early new Loglanists were word-of--mounth. --- MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > In a message dated 2005-02-20 5:21:35 AM > Eastern Standard Time, > ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > > > > From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com > > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:11:51 EST > > Subject: [lojban] promoting a conlang > > > > > Does anyone with a foot in the Esperanto > camp know how successful Harry > > > Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat" books were > for promoting Esperanto use? > > > > > i don't know the answer to your question, but > i'll bet it was practically > > nil. i have the esperanto version of the > first book, unread because i > > didn't > > enjoy the story in english. > > loglan was mentioned in robert a. heinlein's > "the moon is a harsh mistress", > > and i don't think loglan profited much from > the reference. i know that when > > i > > first read the book, i assumed it was a > fictitious language that heinlein > > made up himself. it was only after i became > aware of loglan on my own that > > i > > found references to the story and reread the > book. > > > > stevo > > > > Who resent this and why? > stevo >