[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lojban] rapprochement
From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
At 12:58 AM 02/21/2000 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
>From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:
> > 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.
>...
> > 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.
>
>You imply above that you foresee new entrants learning Lojban and not
>Loglan. Why then should Loglan continue to be developed?
It is not clear that it will continue to be developed. That is the choice
of those who might choose to develop it. The Lojban effort started as an
expression of freedom. Why eliminate options for people for who do not
support us willingly?
But the answer is that there are others besides new entrants to be thought
of, and in fact those others are the ones with whom we must fairly
negotiate, if we are to earn their willing support. Their numbers are
small, but their support would be the public relations coup that I
mentioned above - the successful closure of a conlang schism.
> If Lojban is more advanced, and Loglan is a primitive, ancestral form,
> it makes little sense for any more attention to be paid to Loglan except
> as you note
>above -- a historical curiosity.
Still, there are some for whom the relearning effort may seem too much (and
I have to admit that we don't have a fabulous learning suite for those who
would relearn, though LogFlash is very effective at vocabulary relearning,
as Nora and I are proof). For some old Loglanists, if they have a way to
contribute, it may only be through the limited amount they can contribute
via the historic language. Why forgo that contribution?
>What is reunification, if Loglan withers and Lojban thrives? It seems to
>me that TLI should adopt Lojban, as a newer and more advanced form of
>Loglan.
It is a political compromise, one that leaves TLI supporters a choice that
they deserve. It shows respect to JCB, who deserves our respect as founder
of the language, and who would likely not have approved of such an
immediate and wholesale abandonment of his last 15 years work. I don't
think there is anything of value for Lojban in that work, but others may
think differently; only if TLI opens the intellectual property doors
completely is it likely that anyone will find out. If people want to
explore, then Lojban has provision through its experimental cmavo space for
exploring the possibilities, and it will not threaten the baseline, which
as you noted I have committed the organization to (actually the voting
members committed the organization to the baseline, and I do not claim the
power to override member decisions).
Furthermore, there is some advantage in having a playground for those who
want to experiment. Historically, experimenters more interested in
conlanging than in using a language have splintered off. They do not need
to here - they have TLI Loglan, experimentation with which has the blessing
of its inventor/founder. I think TLI Loglan would have to adopt
counterparts to most or all the advances that we've made in Lojban in order
for that experimentation to be productive, but implementing those advances
itself will convince many as to the worthiness of Lojban as the vehicle of
JCB's legacy.
While it would be wonderful indeed were TLI to adopt Lojban as the chosen
form of Loglan, it is not necessary that they do so and it is not apropos
that we try to push this on them.
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!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the fastest, easiest way to backup files and access them from
anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance
to win a digital camera.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1783/1/_/17627/_/951144103/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com