At 07:31 PM 11/30/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:I am not upset at the historical fact that Loglan is moribund. Iaccepted this long ago and began learning the new language. I have readabout 3/4 of John Cowan's book. I have donated multiple copies of the grammer to libraries, and filled out requests for the book in many other libraries. There are 5 former Loglan fans who I've managed to interest in lojban. Another dozen or so newbies that I've convinced tobuy the grammer or study the online materials. Whenever I meet somebodywho I think might be interested, I tell them about lojban.I have no question as to your support for Lojban.
<snip>
I have posted to the lojban list many times in both English and lojban, although less often since the birth of my children. I read the listserveveryday. I visit Robin's lojban website everyday. I am teaching my children lojban, although I have been frustrated at the lack of a dictionary and better learning tools, particularly for children. There are many people who bought the original JCB Loglan books, but were uninvolved in the political intrigues that led to the split between lojban and Loglan. I believe it would be politically wise to acknowledge Loglan in the baseline. Loglan is part of the history of lojban.I agree with this. The explicit, albeit informal invitation to Bob McIvor to participate in the byfy is some recognition of this. But the membersvoted in 1992 that "Lojban is Loglan", and I think only the members can vote to officially retract that sentiment.
OK, as a member of the lojban community, I hearby propose that a resolution rescinding the "Lojban is Loglan" policy statement be considered by whatever mucky-mucks are appropriate to such a decision (members, board, or byfy).
I am not suggesting that any changes be made to lojban, only that the lojban-Loglan relationship be addressed in the baseline. Why unnecessarily alienate people who are very likely to be interested in joining the lojban community?I don't think that anything has been done to explicitly alienate the TLI community, and much that is not reportable has gone on behind the scenes towards the contrary. But legally, we can do nothing with JCB's language without explicit permission from TLI; I remain under a threat from their lawyer merely because I prepared a list of corresponding cmavo from the twoversions with the intent of putting that list in an appendix to the dictionary. I believe that the current TLI management would not pursuethat hostile approach to us, but we are extremely constrained between thecommunity's commitment to the Lojban baseline and the copyright claims dispute that originally engendered Lojban.
OK, so lets ask TLI to officially call off their legal dogs, patch up the differences, and make nice. Maybe they will give us their mailing lists. What harm could there be in asking?
Just because I don't post very often doesn't mean that I have lost interest in lojban. I just don't have time to write posts for anything but what I consider critical issues. I thought that fuzzy logic was one important issue. I think that healing the lojban-Loglan schism is another important issue. (And so conveyed my opinion to lojbab and also to JCB prior to his death.) I believe that lojban is important. It sure would be nice to have a dictionary...
-Steven