[lojban] Re: Some concerns from a Lojban beginner

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 12:30 PM 12/6/02 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:21:56AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > IMO, whatever the political motivations, Lojban loses by being defined
> > publicly in terms of Loglan. Think how many sleeper cells you pick up
> > by saying Lojban is a Loglan --- and then consider how much damage is
> > done when Don Harlow, in his description of conlangs, sneeringly
> > refers to "Loglan and its offshoot, Lojban."
>
>I hadn't thought about it that way before.  I think I agree.

When Don Harlow or any Esperanto leader sneers, they make Esperanto look 
bad, not us.  Lojban is indeed an offshoot of Loglan; indeed Lojban IS 
Loglan.  Harlow says it, and I brag it. People who are willing to consider 
a logical language do not look down on us for being an "offshoot".  And if 
we make a constructive peace with TLI, we will be the language schism that 
mended, and be able to sneer at them (if we should wish to be so impolite %^).

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



To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/