From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Sep 30 00:39:08 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 30 Sep 1993 04:43:50 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 30 Sep 1993 04:43:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199309300843.AA11294@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6047; Thu, 30 Sep 93 04:41:57 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4937; Thu, 30 Sep 93 04:42:46 EDT Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 04:39:08 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: use "lojbau" not "lojban" X-To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: I disagree, at least at this stage of the Lojban game, with And. After reading, or at least looking at, Michael Helsem's purple Lojban, and realizing that most of us are still pretty purple to some extent, and indeed quite unique in each our own way, most uses of Lojban are referring to one person's version of the langauge, and not to any seamless mass language that would have the place structure of a ...bau i.e. the people who regularly speak/use that dialect. It is still true that Lojban is not quite a language in the English sense as well, and for the most part using a label or tag is more accurate than making or implying a predication. In any case, "Lojban" is the English name for it, and most of our discussions remain in English. When we are regularly conversing in mutually comprehensible Lojban, And's argument will hold stronger with me for in-language use. Note that idiomatically, though, la lojban will stick around for borderline situations since names don't need terminators. We can say "la lojban. mo", but need a "cu" in "la lojbau cu mo" lojbab