On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:19 PM, Invent Yourself wrote:
So this discussion is logically null. You want to patch over theschism, but you claim to realize that there is in fact no way to mergethe two languages, making the idea of schism resolution is meaningless. You argue vociferously in the interest of an invisible,silent population -- Loglanists who now have a new interest in Lojban. You have argued for but then de-emphasized that toggle cmavo. You havecomplained about your lost Loglan efforts, but then claimed to haveforgotten most of your Loglan anyway. And you want to convince newbiesof the changelessness of Lojban by offering to change it for them.Maybe you ought to switch to decaf.Try posting other than such this tangled mess of non sequiturs, shifting goals, outright contradictions, and cheap shots, and I won't be driven todrink!
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. The toggling cmavo might help Loglanders to transition to lojban. Perhaps there are other mechanisms which would be more effective for expanding the lojban community, but I believe the downside of a toggling cmavo is virtually nil. Certainly, if the toggling cmavo would "break" lojban, it should not be adopted.
A language requires a community of speakers in order to thrive. Loglanders are more likely than practically anybody else to have some interest in lojban. 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?
-Steven