Message-Id: <v03102802b54264168eb5@[206.175.99.66]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005121736100.5721-100000@tam.n>
References: <8fh6oa+dvo1@eGroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 22:04:08 -0400
To: Elrond <grey.havens@earthling.net>, michael helsem <graywyvern@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] redherringfication of lojban
Cc: lojban@egroups.com
From: "Robert A. McIvor" <rmcivor@macsrule.com>
Content-Length: 1330
Lines: 35

At 17:55 +0200 12/5/00, Elrond wrote:
>> Since the death of James Cooke Brown, inventor
>> of Loglan, there have been calls for the
>> reunification of the Loglan and Lojban movements. I think it's a
>> good idea,
>I think so, too...
>
However, the suggestion made by Rex May received the same sort of reception
on the
Loglan side, as Elrond has stated
>
>I think that it is clear that uniting Loglan and Lojban now should *not*
>start by changing the structures of the langages themselves. Moreover,
>Lojban's langage structure is now officially (and
>practically?) rigidified, while Loglan is not, AFAIK. I am not completely
>aware of linguistic issues there, but I feel like we can only "add new
>features" to Lojban now, and not remove or change anything.
>
	Loglan is not rigidified, but on the other hand, it is not changing
according to the mood of its leaders.  For many years the few alterations
that have been made have been extensions to the language rather than
changes of existing forms.  While Dr. Brown was alive, any changes had to be
approved unanimously by an Academy.
	The baselining of Lojban makes it unlikely that any reunification
of the movements will occur.  However, a cooperative rather than an
adversarial attitude may well be achievable.


Sincerely,
Robert A. McIvor
(rmcivor@mac.com)