From sentto-44114-2000-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Fri Feb 18 14:26:08 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 4970 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 14:26:06 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 14:26:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 23487 invoked by uid 40001); 18 Feb 2000 14:28:59 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 23484 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 14:28:58 -0000 Received: from hl.egroups.com (208.48.218.14) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 14:28:58 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2000-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Feb 2000 14:28:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 24275 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 14:28:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.36 with QMQP; 18 Feb 2000 14:28:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.pemail2.net) (195.92.25.8) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 14:28:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 12655 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 14:28:51 -0000 Received: from m183-mp1-cvx1c.lan.ntl.com (HELO andrew) (62.252.172.183) by mailhost.pemail2.net with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 14:28:51 -0000 To: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" , Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000215140240.00a4ef00@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:29:45 -0000 From: "And Rosta" Subject: [lojban] rapprochement Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "And Rosta" > >From: Alex Leith > > > >I've been pondering a rapprochement between Loglan and Lojban, and Bob > >McIvor is thinking that way too. I do hope that Lojbanistan takes a proactive stance on this, more than just wishing Loglan good luck. As far as I am aware, there have been many IAL schisms, but never a reunification, so that would be a shining first. And the longer it is delayed, the more people will have a vested interest in there not being a reunification (because they won't want to do any extra learning). Without reunification, even with goodwill the two lgs would be rivals, and though Lojban is altogether the more vigorous, it will always be Pepsi to Loglan's Coke. I suggested in a message to the Loglanists list that we could start by having a new language with two alternate lexicogrammars, i.e. Lojban and classical Loglan. A shared cmavo could indicate which was being used. A next stage would be to define lexical equivalences for the cmavo, and possibly for the gismu. After that, it could be left to usage of the combined speech communities to determine what the eventual product would look like. I suppose the reason why I think all this would be such a good idea is that reunification would be a major achievement, and one in the Lojban (and possibly Loglan) spirit, given that Lojban is a rare example of something that was successfully created through cooperative and collective endeavour. --And. --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no hidden fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com