Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:36:08 -0600
Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548)
Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org
To: araizen@newmail.net
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@uic.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3DF5BC34.4060701@newmail.net>
Message-Id: <31C3CD5E-0C2B-11D7-A360-000393629ED4@uic.edu>
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
Content-Length: 961
Lines: 24

On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 04:04  AM, Adam Raizen wrote:

> la djorden. cusku di'e
>
>> I'm not a LLG member, so I can't official propose this for the next
>> meeting (afaik).  However, as a member of the community I would
>> like to ask that at the next LLG meeting the "lojban is loglan"
>> statement be considered for revokation.
>
> There was a very difficult and expensive legal battle fought over this,
> and those who participated in it would probably not want their effort 
> to
> be nullified, and historically Lojban is related to Loglan, so at least
> for those reasons it would probably be difficult to straight-out revoke
> the "lojban is loglan" statement. I think that a clarification is in
> order, though.

I shall be most intrigued to learn of a "clarification" that refutes my 
assertion that Loglan is the English word for what lojbanistanis refer 
to as lojban in their native language. Do you have such a 
"clarification"?

-Steven