At 08:40 AM 12/10/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 05:15 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote:Even you refer to "Loglan", meaning TLI's implementation of JCB's idea,We officially use "TLI Loglan" to refer to JCB's language. If we were to only use "Loglan" to refer to JCB's language, and only use "Lojban" for ours, we could undo the court-ruling that "Loglan" is generic.I would prefer to use TLI Loglan to refer to the ancestor language and Loglan to refer to the currently active language.
You might prefer it, but the community has chosen to use Lojban. I occasionally use the full name "Lojban - A Realization of Loglan" when being formal, but informally no one is likely to use that phrase. Meanwhile, in the context of your 500, TLI Loglan is not even a single language, but a family of languages, ranging from the one in the 1960 Sci Am article to the 3rd edition language of 1974-5 to the 4th edition language of 1989, to the current TLI language. But all of them call their language "Loglan", and our language "Lojban".
In the interests of clarity for those who lack a full appreciation for the history of the language, I have agreed to use LLG Loglan for the active language for a brief time. I will now only use lojban when writing in LLG Loglan. Which reminds me that all this political nonsense is interfering with my actual learning of LLG Loglan.
Yes it is. And everyone else's, which is why they are showing hostility. They don't care!
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