Re: mutual project

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

William Tanksley wrote:

> > That's what history looks like from the rear. It didn't happen that way.
> 
> That's a newbie's impression gained by reading most of the web pages,
> which is all I have available.  I assume from your words that you know how
> it actually happened; I'm all ears.
> 
> Such documentation would, I suspect, be a good thing to post on both web
> pages.  I suspect that if done right it would help to heal some parts of
> the rift (although as I said before, I don't think the two languages will
> ever merge).

Or make it worse.  The history of a dispute is difficult to write
until all the participants have died off.  1/2 :-)

This can be said, however: that a dispute about legalities and about
organizational rules caused an organizational fission: an attempt,
on the part of the offshoot, to avoid further disputes about legalities
caused a fission of the languages: positions then hardened on both
sides.  Loglan remains mutable and proprietary: Lojban is public
domain, but is no longer changing by the conscious choice of its
creators.  (Natural language drift is expected to occur, as in
all languages.)

> > Its definition may be frozen, but do you suppose that stops people
> > tinkering with it? The point is that we know that any suggestions we
> > make (that touch the matter which has been baselined) cannot become part
> > of the language, at least until the next baseline. That doesn't stop us
> > 'exploring' as you put it.
> 
> Nothing stops anyone -- we're all free agents.  We still generally start
> out wanting to do something, and choosing the best tool for that job.  If
> you want to modify a language, you'll prefer a language which is open for
> modification.

The view of LLG (the Lojban organization) is that many people
will not learn a language that they perceive as showing a substantial
risk of change, for they are not willing to have to unlearn what
they have learned.  At the present time both Lojban (de jure) and
Loglan (de facto) have stabilized, as far as I can tell.
 
> That's the hope.  Well, good luck to us all.

Indeed.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)