Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206183557.00a9c050@pop.east.cox.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 18:39:13 -0500
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Some concerns from a Lojban beginner
In-Reply-To: <20021206203025.GL28980@digitalkingdom.org>
References: <1FD5CBE3-079C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au>
 <1FD5CBE3-079C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Content-Length: 1279
Lines: 28

At 12:30 PM 12/6/02 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:21:56AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > IMO, whatever the political motivations, Lojban loses by being defined
> > publicly in terms of Loglan. Think how many sleeper cells you pick up
> > by saying Lojban is a Loglan --- and then consider how much damage is
> > done when Don Harlow, in his description of conlangs, sneeringly
> > refers to "Loglan and its offshoot, Lojban."
>
>I hadn't thought about it that way before.  I think I agree.

When Don Harlow or any Esperanto leader sneers, they make Esperanto look 
bad, not us.  Lojban is indeed an offshoot of Loglan; indeed Lojban IS 
Loglan.  Harlow says it, and I brag it. People who are willing to consider 
a logical language do not look down on us for being an "offshoot".  And if 
we make a constructive peace with TLI, we will be the language schism that 
mended, and be able to sneer at them (if we should wish to be so impolite %^).

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