To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Loglan
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:08:09 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMAEMNGPAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <E2458076-04E2-11D7-B360-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au>
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Content-Length: 971
Lines: 24

Nick:
> Steven, I don't get what you want the baseline statement to day
>
[...]
> That any work be done to merge Lojban and Loglan into the same
> language, or even into similar languages? I have no interest in that,
> and I doubt many Lojbanists dating from after the split (the clear
> majority) do either

Are there actually any active Loglanists interested in such a thing?
I myself was formerly in favour of rapprochement, if only so newcomers
don't get posed the choice of Loglan vs Lojban. But if Loglan is now
nigh-on extinct, there seems no point in rapprochement, though
I would favour more actively applying the name Loglan to Lojban,
to ensure that people seeking Loglan (e.g. by googling) find their way
to modern Loglan, i.e. Lojban. I suppose what I'm saying is that if
there isn't enough of a thriving TLI Loglan community to actually have
rapprochement with, we should go the other way and more volubly declare Lojban
to be Loglan.

--And.