Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:29:30 -0600
Subject: Re: [lojban] Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=EUC-KR; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548)
Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com
To: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129203701.0312b050@pop.east.cox.net>
Message-Id: <0C2532EB-049A-11D7-BAFA-000393629ED4@uic.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Content-Length: 4985
Lines: 129

lojbab has told us the decision of the Board, but not their reasoning.=20=20
Lojban is Loglan? Bah, humbug. Vacuous nonsense. Vigorous assertion=20=20
convinces me of nothing. Loglan is dead, long live lojban? Well, maybe. =
=20
But those who do not remember their past are condemned to relive it.=20=20
There is a substantial body of written Loglan text extant, which=20=20
despite flaws should not be completely ignored. I memorized every=20=20
blasted one of those Loglan predicates. I was pretty damned irritated=20=20
when I learned that this was all for not due to the fracture in the=20=20
Loglan community, and the subsequent moribund state of the parent=20=20
language. I can not support a lojban baseline policy statement which=20=20
does not cover Loglan. A joint lojban/Loglan toggling cmavo would=20=20
satisfy me. So would a formal autotranslate utility of some kind=20=20
(although some syntactic problems in Loglan would still have to be=20=20
fixed, if they haven't already been fixed.)

What is the point of ignoring Loglan? This seems like pointless spite=20=20
towards a dead man. Whatever his shortcomings, JCB's memory deserves=20=20
better than this. In my conversations with him I was impressed by his=20=20
boundless optimism and creativity. I liked the guy. If this issue is=20=20
not resolved, I swear a mighty oath to use (wherever appropriate) the=20=20
word "simba" for "tiger" in all lojban communication henceforth.

Bilti cmalo nirli ckela!

-Steven

On Friday, November 29, 2002, at 07:54  PM, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

> At 04:47 PM 11/29/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
>> The lojban baseline policy statement does not appear to explicitly=20=20
>> address
>> the relationship between lojban and Loglan. The implication is that=20=20
>> the
>> Loglan language and community is irrelevant to the new baseline=20=20
>> policy.
>> Prior to voting, I would like comment from lojbab and other=20=20
>> movers/shakers
>> on this issue.
>
> The Board explicitly chose to NOT mention the relationship between=20=20
> Lojban
> and Loglan (and asked me to remove the small reference that I had made =
=20
> to
> the issue).
>
> I continue to communicate with Bob McIvor, the successor CEO of The=20=20
> Loglan
> Institute, Inc., on ways in which the two communities can work=20=20
> together.  I
> have also asked McIvor if he or someone he would designate as suitable,
> would like to participate in the byfy, so that the Lojban discussions =
=20
> can
> benefit from whatever relevant experience the Loglanists have had with
> their version of the language.  If in doing so, we make choices that
> enhance the rapprochement between the two communities, this would be
> ideal.  (Note that the byfy is open to all members of the community,=20=20
> and is
> not necessarily limited in number.  Thus McIvor, who has participated
> usefully on Lojban List, would be welcomed in any event.  But I made=20=20
> the
> invitation explicit to show that we are trying to be inclusive and not
> exclusive.
>
> On the other hand, there is no question of even considering any=20=20
> significant
> changes to Lojban in order to remerge the two language.  There have=20=20
> been
> ideas proposed that would allow the two versions to exist side by side =
=20
> or
> to transition back into a single language (which as far as we are=20=20
> concerned
> would be Lojban)  - the alternate orthography is one, and was=20=20
> discussed in
> the refgrammar.  Another that was discussed was assigning a cmavo as a
> dialect toggle, that would allow switching between the two versions.  =
=20
> Other
> possibilities could be considered by the byfy, but I've told McIvor=20=20
> that
> there would not likely be much willingness to accomodate Loglan.
>
> The other side of the coin is that The Loglan Institute, since the=20=20
> death of
> JCB and his first successor Alex Leith a year later, is barely extant =
=20
> as an
> organization.  It is not clear that it has a long term future, or that =
=20
> the
> TLI language version will survive in any form.  In 1992, the voting=20=20
> members
> passed a resolution stating that "Lojban IS Loglan", and that remains =
=20
> my
> guiding standard.
>
> lojbab
>
> --=20=20
> lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
> Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
> 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    =
=20
> 703-385-0273
> Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 =
=20
> http://www.lojban.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20=20
> ---------------------~-->
> =A2=B2FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/GSaulB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=20
> ~->
>
> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to=20=20
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>