From sentto-44114-2423-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Wed Apr 19 14:36:50 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 26102 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2000 14:36:47 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 2000 14:36:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 25290 invoked by uid 40001); 19 Apr 2000 15:38:17 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 25287 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2000 15:38:16 -0000 Received: from mw.egroups.com (207.138.41.167) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 2000 15:38:16 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2423-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Apr 2000 15:38:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 29793 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2000 15:38:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Apr 2000 15:38:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (205.252.14.63) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2000 15:38:00 -0000 Received: from bob (209-8-89-124.dynamic.cais.com [209.8.89.124]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11065 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000419112753.00ae2100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 To: lojban@onelist.com In-Reply-To: <16.2a3db4b.262d7eb0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:41:15 -0400 X-eGroups-From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Subject: Re: [lojban] Reviews Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 05:02 AM 04/18/2000 -0400, pc wrote: >A reference for the review and mentioned would still be handy. > >Loglan got some thoroughly mixed reviews in the late70's- early 80's (i.e., >for a language barely visibly related to either TLI's or LLG's current >offerings) by Zwicky in Language, I think. 1968. John Cowan answered this, we think effectively, with the article now at http:/www.lojban.org/why-lojban/reply.txt Cowan's article has the reference. > And, of course, the NSF proposals >got very bad reviews (though not generally for their linguistics) throughout >the 80's. pc is feeling young, I guess. The NSF proposals were torn apart in the 70s. Generally the criticisms fell into 3 categories. 1) NSF shouldn't be funding linguistics research involving artificial languages not matter what, 2) the proposals were too vague (which they were - the scientific content was minimal because JCB expected people to read the material mentioned in the next point) and 3) that JCB had included thousands of pages of supplementary material that the reviewers did not necessarily see (because he wasn't supposed to rely on such material like complete copies of L1 and all issues of The Loglanist) and which were too much to read. The first proposal was either marked as outstanding or as awful. Later proposals, where the recipients did not get the supplementary material were generally responded to with a "what's this about?" lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enjoy the award-winning journalism of The New York Times with convenient home delivery. And for a limited time, get 50% off for the first 8 weeks by subscribing. Pay by credit card and receive an additional 4 weeks at this low introductory rate. http://click.egroups.com/1/3102/2/_/17627/_/956158687/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com