Message-Id: <199602101553.KAA11446@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:20:25 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: lojban evolution
To:         ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
Content-Length: 864

>> Lojban IS Loglan.
>
>Is that equative BE, so the sentence is like "Cicero is Tully",
>rephrasable as "Loglan is Lojban", [meaning: The two terms denote
>the same thing] or is it predicative BE, like in "Gluttony is vice"
>[meaning: Lojban belongs to the class of loglans] or is it like
>"Clinton is the president" [meaning: it is lojban that is the true
>incarnation of the loglan spirit]? Or is it deliberatelly intended
>to suggest all these meanings?

I am sure the latter, and then some.  There was also a clear sense of
LLG supplanting JCB as the guiding authority of the project, since we
explicitly deposed his authority in the same meeting if I recall.
Prior to that, reconciliation was a goal, and compatability with JCB's
implementation was a design consideration.  Thereafter, the tie is solely
back to JCB;s pronouncements before the split.

lojbab