Message-Id: <199602091539.KAA08707@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 07:09:36 -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: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Content-Length: 935

>> If you use the official version of the language, you are speaking
>> Lojban.  If you deviate too far, then the vast majority of Lojbanists
>> will reject your usage as non-Lojban.  (Jim Carter can undoubtedly
>> testify to this.)  And seems to be trying to explore to find out where
>> that point is %^).
>
>Do you mean jimc can testify to his usage not being Lojban? Jimc's
>silence appears to be relatively self-imposed; I rather wish he would
>tout guaspi a bit more on this list. I might be willing to consider
>guaspi to be lojban.

You can consider anything you like to be anything you like, but I doubt
that jimc does.

Discussion of gua spi might be appropriate for conlang.  But "touting it"
would be as inapproproate as touting TLI Loglan, if not more so, because
jimc changed the name in part because he himself no longer considered the
language to be Loglan as opposed to evolved from Loglan.  Lojban IS Loglan.

lojbab