From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Sun Dec 01 21:27:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Dec 2002 05:27:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 30844 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 05:27:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 05:27:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aquila.its.unimelb.EDU.AU) (128.250.20.111) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 05:27:10 -0000 Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by SMTP.UNIMELB.EDU.AU (PMDF V5.2-29 #46888) id <01KPKA12RD4W97DQZV@SMTP.UNIMELB.EDU.AU> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:27:07 +1100 Received: from [128.250.86.21] (porchermac.language.unimelb.edu.au [128.250.86.21]) by SMTP.UNIMELB.EDU.AU (PMDF V5.2-29 #46888) with ESMTP id <01KPKA12E7LO91HRY3@SMTP.UNIMELB.EDU.AU> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:27:07 +1100 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:18:38 +1100 Subject: Re: Loglan X-Sender: opoudjis@mail.optushome.com.au To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 17353 Steven, this is going around in circles, and I still don't get what you want. What I can extrapolate you want, I'm either indifferent to, or I reject. There's no disputing that (a) if you come across from Loglan to Lojban, you're going to have to relearn all your gismu; and (b) most Lojbanists have no interest in learning Loglan gismu to accomodate Loglanists. Now, if you think this means we should stop saying Lojban is Loglan, then that becomes an issue for a distinct membership statement, and someone should raise it at the next general meeting. (The board, from what I understand, cannot rescind a membership statement.) But if you vote against the current board statement on the baseline because it ignores Loglan, I still have to ask: why should it mention Loglan? The current board statement doesn't mention the invasion of Iraq either, or the congressional elections. It is specific to how the Lojban baseline works. And Lojban has its own grammar, and its own baseline, and its own community pressures: it is a distinct entity, which needs to put its own affairs in order. We have already agreed that what goes into the baseline will not be decided by the prospect of compatibility with Loglan --- you've said so yourself. We've also said that individual Loglanists can participate in the BPFK, and we've said under what auspices. Now, if we should be saying more to attract Loglanists to the language, this we can discuss. But I do not see what on earth that has to do with the baseline statement --- unless even a jot of the language changes to acommodate Loglan. Which, if I have anything to do with it, it will not. If Loglan does something better, then I'm happy to consider it, because then it's in Lojban's interest to follow suit. But I will not regard compliance with Loglan as a legitimate end in itself for any proposed changes. So what would you have us say to loglanists? "We will not change our language a jot to accomodate you (which we won't), but rest assured that it's similar enough to Loglan that you can pick it up easily"? Well, that may be true, but why is that offer particularly tempting? Steven, we're chasing phantoms here. Why don't you concretely write a paragraph which you think we should be passing as the LLG; and we can evaluate that. The implication you seem to be making, btw, is that, because we said "Lojban is Loglan" 15 years ago, everything the LLG says officially has to pay attention to Loglan. One could argue that, if Lojban is Loglan, then it is doing exactly that --- because it *is* defining Lojban, which is Loglan. But that's casuistry. What you're asking for is some recognition, I suppose, of TLI Loglan. Well recognition doesn't cost us anything. "Lojban is conceived in the same spirit as Loglan and with the same goals, and has significant structural overlap with Loglan; we welcome people interested in Logical Languages to investigate our language." Didn't cost me a farthing to type that. But: (a) if you come across from Loglan to Lojban, you're going to have to relearn all your gismu; (b) I have no interest in learning Loglan gismu to accomodate Loglanists. That's non-negotiable. Leave my Lojban as Lojban, and tell the Loglanists whatever you want. ... At least, you can. The LLG can, too. But personally, I think this whole poaching Loglanists business is sleazy. If the TLI regard as an adversary, they're not giving us jack --- permission to compile a two-way glossary, their membership list, this all hinges on their consent and good will. (Remember, Bob was blocked by lawyers from preparing a two-way dictionary in the first place. We can ask the TLI if that block still stands, if you want; if someone wants to prepare such a dictionary, I may or may not regard it as pointless, but I'm not very well going to stop them.) But if they do not regard us as an adversary now, us poaching their members would certainly make them regard us as an adversary. I know how I'd react if I saw a loglanist on the lojban list recruiting. Whatever expediency you or Bob see to recruiting committed Loglanists, to me it looks nothing but disrespectful. Both you and Bob seem to be thinking about a reunification which involves us compromising nothing; in effect, we'd be asking the Loglanists to disband the TLI, abandon their language institutionally and officially, and join with us. Only that way would there be no two loglans, and no change in Lojban. I think that scenario distasteful, and oppose it. You or Bob can ask McIvor or whoever about whether the TLI does it, and the membership or board can vote this into being LLG policy. But to me, it is shriekingly arrogant. If Loglan is to die, I'd rather it die like the craggish hermit on the mountain --- than like Pan-Am. And the phantom Loglanists, the ones not active in Loglan? *shrug* Maybe we could do a flyer or something ("Lojban: just like the Loglan you know, only used"); but I honestly can't see the TLI giving us their address list. In fact, I would lose even more respect for them if they did sell themselves out like that. Again, I'd bounce this back to you, since you want to see this happen: what would you say in such a flyer? Feel free to draft one, and we can debate the wisdom of it. Don't expect me or xod to draft one, though, 'cause we don't care about this. Sorry, but we don't; we have no emotional investment in Loglan. And in this community, if you want to get something done, you should know by now you gotta do it yourself. -- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@unimelb.edu.au * University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****