RE: On international applications of Lojban

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>]

My response to the Top-Down idea of IAL or Lojban adoption 
is to wonder why it should be a good thing for the adopting
body? Take the European patent organization: it would be
a trivial task to develop a language that shares Lojban's
virtues of nonambiguity and other areas of suitability to
the formulation of patents but is much simpler and easier 
to learn; logicians have been using such languages for
decades. Likewise for an IAL; if the EU did decide it 
would be economically advantageous (tho I think it wouldn't),
for what reason (other than idiocy) would it opt for the
halfarsed candidate IALs currently on the market?

In my view, the Bottom-Up approach is the only viable one
for Lojban and currently extant IALs. The only hope for
Lojban to succeed Top-Downly is that some organization is
intelligent enough to see the merits of adopting a logical
language, but stupid enough to choose Lojban to do the job.

(This isn't an attack on Lojban. Lojban is more complex
than it needs to be for limited, formal, written applications
because it needs also to be usable for the full range of
linguistic functions. (I still think it's unnecessarily
complex grammatically even given that, but that's not my 
point.))

--And.