On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 08:41 -0800, John E Clifford wrote: >Totally off the controversy. The post-1975 >growth of Loglan brought in at least a dozen >people who were drawn by the Heinlein. They by >and large did not go looking for Loglan because >of the reference (and they wouldn't have found it >if they had) but responded to the announcement >when it came because they remembered the >Heinlein. This was a larger group than (or maybe >just the same size as) the group who were >following up on the 1960 SA article (in spite of >the fact that the announcement was primarily in >SA). Unlike Esperanto, almost none of the early >new Loglanists were word-of--mounth. I know I've mentioned this before, but I came into Lojban specifically because of a Heinlein book. Although it wasn't TMIAHM. I hadn't read that yet. I was reading Number of the Beast, and there are references to Deety programming with Loglan. I was curious if this was a real programming language. So I hit google. I found both Lojban and Loglan. I initially dismissed Lojban because it appeared to be a half-assed fork from people who decided that they didn't like the way Loglan was being run (full-assed, now I realize). Then I noticed the conspicuous lack of any Loglan community to speak of. That was the end of that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part