From: CJ FINE Message-Id: <12468.9208142022@mail.bradford.ac.uk> Subject: TLI Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 21:22:15 BST Content-Length: 2777 Lines: 51 Some rambling comments on relations with TLI. As predicted by you and Nick, I am inclined to a more moderate line than many (perhaps it's because I'm a peace student!) I guess my position on relearning is that, having learned two versions, (the second being very much better, when I came to it, than the first was when I left it), I have no objection personally to junking either of them in order for something at least as good. That is to say, I would not drop Lojban to pick up something (eg current TLI) that lacks much of what I love about it; but I would have no strong objection, for example, to reverting to TLI vocabulary with more-or-less Lojban grammar, if that were an option. Loglan is to me a relaxation (which is why, incidentally, my answer to whether I would be interested in being a voting member was '.ieru'e' - I enjoy spending time on playing with it, and would be willing to do a certain amount of background work, but find I am not much motivated to take it more seriously) and I happen to find learning words and things rather easy, so I would not complain too much for myself if I had to relearn them. Having said that, I am aware that this is likely to be a minority view, and if (as I expect) the bulk of Lojbanists were to resist such a possibility, I would happily support them. To me, the split, with its enmity and waste of resources, is more important than almost anything else. I am delighted that there is dialogue at last (I wonder how JCB is viewing it?) and my concern is that TLI and LLG work together on amicable terms: that is more important to me than whether there is one language or two. (I can even see some advantages in having two related but different languages, for many of the purposes of the project). Least important of all is how the organisations merge or don't. [I guess this may be an unwelcome point of view to Bob, as it might be seen to be making light of the organisational work he and the others have been putting in over the years: I do not mean it that way, and acknowledge all you have done to keep LLG going, particularly in the light of the legal attacks.] I do find the openness of LLG more congenial than Jim's pivotal role in the old TLI (I have not been in contact with it recently, so I do not know directly how it appears to correspondents now). It seems to me that somewhere along the way, JCB's self-esteem got tied up in a big way with being the king-pin of HIS language, and the community has suffered thereby: thus far (zo'o) Bob seems to have avoided this trap. But I look forward to the time when we can acknowledge JCB's seminal role, (and feel that he is hearing our acknowledgement), while yet knowing that he recognises that his bangu panzi is grown-up and can stand on its own feet.