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

[lojban] Re: Loglan


On Lundi, déce 2, 2002, at 00:18 US/Eastern, Nick Nicholas wrote:


Well recognition doesn't cost us anything. "Lojban is conceived in
the same spirit as Loglan and with the same goals, and has
significant structural overlap with Loglan; we welcome people
interested in Logical Languages to investigate our language.


	That extent of recognition would be sufficient to satisfy me


At least, you can. The LLG can, too. But personally, I think this
whole poaching Loglanists business is sleazy.


	I agree.


If the TLI regard as an
adversary, they're not giving us jack --- permission to compile a
two-way glossary, their membership list, this all hinges on their
consent and good will.


	I think the active hostility to LLG by TLI died with JCB.  I made
it one of my conditions for accepting to be CEO of TLI  that I would
cooperate with LLG, which was accepted by the Trustees. There
is no objection on my part to preparing a two-way dictionary. As
for the membership list, would LLG provide TLI with their membership
list so we could attempt to poach their members? I think not.


(Remember, Bob was blocked by lawyers from
preparing a two-way dictionary in the first place. We can ask the TLI
if that block still stands, if you want; if someone wants to prepare
such a dictionary, I may or may not regard it as pointless, but I'm
not very well going to stop them.)

policy. But to me, it is shriekingly arrogant. If Loglan is to die,
I'd rather it die like the craggish hermit on the mountain --- than
like Pan-Am.


	But if it does die, and Lojban still exists, then I would like to
see it continue to recognize its Loglan heritage.