[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: Loglan

On Dimanche, déce 1, 2002, at 20:16 US/Eastern, Invent Yourself wrote:


On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Steven Belknap wrote:
The non-sequiturs, shifting goals, and outright contradictions are
present only in your distorted, unfair summaries of my opinions. I never
advocated merging the languages, only in finding a way to facilitate the
transition from Loglan to lojban. I *did* feel unhappy about my lost
Loglan efforts and *have* since forgotten most of my loglan vocabulary -
these are not mutually incompatible. I have not suggested changing
lojban, other than to express mild support for the toggling cmavo.

You wrote:

"I can not support a lojban baseline policy statement which does not cover
Loglan. A joint lojban/Loglan toggling cmavo would satisfy me."

Threatening to reject the new policy is hardly "expressing mild support".

Now, the current baseline does not "reflect" Loglan. You want the next one
to. That would require a change; a difference between the two. So you are
suggesting changing Lojban, unless now you want to tire me with a long
argument about how the Lojban language is somehow distinct from the
baseline, and that you can alter the latter without affecting the former.

And if you want to encourage the use of a crazy-quilt pidgin of Loglan and
Lojban mixed in the same sentences, with Lojban cmavo and Loglan gismu,
facilitated by rich use of the toggle you advocate, in order to pander to
people who in theory don't actually want to learn Lojban and in fact have
yet to make their presence known, with the hope of inflating the "numbers"
of "Lojban" speakers, or win the ludicrous propaganda coup of
rapproachment to impress a bystander population of conlangers who don't
really give a damn, and you think such a monstrosity would make life
EASIER for newbies, I lack the time to refute this on its multiple levels
of sickness.

I'm sure the significance of the fact that there are no Loglanists voicing
their support for any of your measures, while one newbie has already
announced discomfort at this Loglan talk is completely lost on you. Go
right on believing that you're defending the interests of newcomers.
I intend to comment on this thread in due course. When it arose, I was
in transit from Canada to Florida, and I have not yet read the complete thread.
I will comment on Steven Belknap's borrowing of a picture from loglan.org, that
only the centre figure is still living (me), is 78 years old, and whose interest in
Lojban is in the similarities, and to what extent Lojban maintains the objectives
set out by JCB for his experiment. I have zero interest in actually learning Lojban
vocabulary. TLI accepted in principle the use of hoa/xo'a. Contrary to Steven's
assumption, I imagine all Loglanists are aware of Lojban, and any so inactive as
not to be aware are unlikely to be more active in the LLG community. Most
newcomers to TLI have looked at both languages before deciding to go with TLI.



Helping lojban to thrive is my goal, which has not shifted whatsoever.
Your goals are unclear to me. Are they clear to you? If so, could you
share them with us?


My goal is to resist any efforts to tamper with the Lojban baseline to
kowtow to a constituency that has never been heard from, in ways that
would be inappropriate even it existed and was clamoring for it.


--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.