Re: [lojban] Re: la .alis.

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Matt Arnold scripsit:

> I would welcome publishing Alice in Wonderland in Lojban. As you point
> out, that already exists. If you want to publish it the way you
> describe, that's fine-- so long as you don't call it Lojban, because
> it isn't.
> 
> If you capitalize proper names and the start of sentences, it's not
> Lojban. 

[snip]

> Matt Arnold
> President, Board of Directors, Logical Language Group

Matt, when you write like this, you're implying that you speak for
the Board.  Has the Board met and voted on this point?

In any case, I very strongly disagree with your claims here.  We have
all sorts of orthographies for Lojban by now, from Cyrillic to Tengwar,
and nobody says that they are "not Lojban".  I think I understand
why some people don't like a traditional-Latin orthography: it's an
instance of "the uncanny valley", just enough like what you're used
to to be upsetting.  But the very fact that the two orthographies are
isomorphic shows that the essential Lojbanity of the text is preserved.

(Which is to say nothing about the fact that the text isn't exactly
straight down the middle semantically.)

-- 
John Cowan    cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Rather than making ill-conceived suggestions for improvement based on
uninformed guesses about established conventions in a field of study with
which familiarity is limited, it is sometimes better to stick to merely
observing the usage and listening to the explanations offered, inserting
only questions as needed to fill in gaps in understanding. --Peter Constable

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.