RE: rapprochement

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
> 
> Not only alluring, but a public relations victory.  For while xod has no 
> interest in the relationship between Lojban and the IAL community, many of 
> the knowledgeable of the world know about the splintering of IAL efforts 
> and the resulting backbiting.  A language that is so good that it can 
> reunify its squabbling supporters would be seen as a good language indeed.
> 
> > > Bob promised the sanctity of baseline Lojban, and I refuse to learn even a
> > > single cmavo beyond it!
> >
> >I and others have been trying to outline a scheme that would reunify the
> >languages without you having to learn more than one or two cmavo (meaning
> >"This is Lojban", "This is TLI Loglan"), and I suppose you could get away
> >without learning those. The baseline would remain virtually intact;
> 
> Totally intact - the use of experimental cmavo like xVV is part of the 
> baseline, and the proposed solution uses experimental cmavo.  (I am 
> reasonably sure that by the time  that there is any question of lifting the 
> baseline, there will no longer be a need for the cmavo.  People will have 
> learned one version well enough that no NEW people will be learning the 
> other version except as a historical curiosity (as one might learn 1975 
> Loglan), and the historical version will dwindle to no usage.  Since one 
> version has only a couple of people using it now, I am confident that 
> Lojban will survive.
> 

...

> 
> And in achieving reunification, there would presumably be no real rivalry, 
> so that new speakers will tend to be attracted to the most used 
> language.  LLG and Lojban can only benefit from this.
> 
> But TLI also benefits, in that they can then ensure a meaningful future for 
> their organization, which right now is suffering as would a tree that just 
> had its roots cut off at ground level; JCB was so central to its modus 
> operandi (I do not relish Alex's job at all right now).
> 
> The longer term result would then be that only one language version 
> probably survives but we have two organizations based on somewhat different 
> philosophies, working to promote whatever version(s) exist, each to our own 
> ends.  And Loglan as a project can only benefit by that, which means that 
> JCB's legacy is assured.



I don't understand any of this.

You imply above that you foresee new entrants learning Lojban and not
Loglan. Why then should Loglan continue to be developed? If Lojban is more
advanced, and Loglan is a primitive, ancestral form, it makes little
sense for any more attention to be paid to Loglan except as you note
above -- a historical curiosity.

What is reunification, if Loglan withers and Lojban thrives? It seems to
me that TLI should adopt Lojban, as a newer and more advanced form of
Loglan.


-----
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.