RE: rapprochement

["Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 02:20 AM 02/20/2000 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>
> > > I do hope that Lojbanistan takes a proactive stance on this, more than
> > > just wishing Loglan good luck. As far as I am aware, there have been
> > > many IAL schisms, but never a reunification, so that would be a shining
> > > first. And the longer it is delayed, the more people will have a vested
> > > interest in there not being a reunification (because they won't want to
> > > do any extra learning).
> >
> > The history of Esperanto vs. Ido, while interesting, is relevant to almost
> > nobody. The context for that statement is that I am interested in the
> > relationship between Lojban and the outside world, and not that between
> > Lojban and the IAL community.
>
>Where I see relevance is that the history of IALs, which I take to include
>Loglan/Lojban, is one of schism and endless proposals of new schemes,
>always in a manner detrimental to achieving the goal of a thriving speech
>community. You can see that force at work in Lojban from people like me and
>Rex May. It's rather like the old political Left, calling on workers of the
>world to unite, but being itself ever more disunited. And when some united
>Left comes along, such as, say, the Bolsheviks post-1918, it was terribly
>alluring. [That's absolutely as far as the Bolshevism--Loglan analogy
>goes, I assure you!]

Not only alluring, but a public relations victory. For while xod has no 
interest in the relationship between Lojban and the IAL community, many of 
the knowledgeable of the world know about the splintering of IAL efforts 
and the resulting backbiting. A language that is so good that it can 
reunify its squabbling supporters would be seen as a good language indeed.

> > Bob promised the sanctity of baseline Lojban, and I refuse to learn even a
> > single cmavo beyond it!
>
>I and others have been trying to outline a scheme that would reunify the
>languages without you having to learn more than one or two cmavo (meaning
>"This is Lojban", "This is TLI Loglan"), and I suppose you could get away
>without learning those. The baseline would remain virtually intact;

Totally intact - the use of experimental cmavo like xVV is part of the 
baseline, and the proposed solution uses experimental cmavo. (I am 
reasonably sure that by the time that there is any question of lifting the 
baseline, there will no longer be a need for the cmavo. People will have 
learned one version well enough that no NEW people will be learning the 
other version except as a historical curiosity (as one might learn 1975 
Loglan), and the historical version will dwindle to no usage. Since one 
version has only a couple of people using it now, I am confident that 
Lojban will survive.

> > Lojban is Loglan. It would be wonderful if the good minds from TLI joined
> > us and applied their years of wisdom to helping us grapple with the
> > advanced topics we have been discussing, such as the subjunctive, etc.
>
>Lojban is not classical TLI Loglan, of course. TLI Loglan is also Loglan.

But TLI Loglan is also not classical TLI Loglan. Both dialects of today 
have major differences from the 1983 language (there having been almost no 
official change from 1983 until 1987 after we had already split 
off). Lojban has more significant lexicon differences.

>As I said in an earlier message, however much goodwill and mutual respect
>there is between the two communities, I think they're doomed to be rivals
>(e.g. in seeking to attract new speakers) unless some kind of reunification
>is achieved.

And in achieving reunification, there would presumably be no real rivalry, 
so that new speakers will tend to be attracted to the most used 
language. LLG and Lojban can only benefit from this.

But TLI also benefits, in that they can then ensure a meaningful future for 
their organization, which right now is suffering as would a tree that just 
had its roots cut off at ground level; JCB was so central to its modus 
operandi (I do not relish Alex's job at all right now).

The longer term result would then be that only one language version 
probably survives but we have two organizations based on somewhat different 
philosophies, working to promote whatever version(s) exist, each to our own 
ends. And Loglan as a project can only benefit by that, which means that 
JCB's legacy is assured.

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 (newly updated!)