From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Nov 29 18:02:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 02:02:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 1984 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 02:02:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 02:02:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao04.cox.net) (68.1.17.241) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 02:02:26 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021130020227.MRUF1248.lakemtao04.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:02:27 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129203701.0312b050@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:54:46 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy In-Reply-To: <9941A95E-03EC-11D7-BAFA-000393629ED4@uic.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126233258.0333f540@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 04:47 PM 11/29/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote: >The lojban baseline policy statement does not appear to explicitly address >the relationship between lojban and Loglan. The implication is that the >Loglan language and community is irrelevant to the new baseline policy. >Prior to voting, I would like comment from lojbab and other movers/shakers >on this issue. The Board explicitly chose to NOT mention the relationship between Lojban and Loglan (and asked me to remove the small reference that I had made to the issue). I continue to communicate with Bob McIvor, the successor CEO of The Loglan Institute, Inc., on ways in which the two communities can work together. I have also asked McIvor if he or someone he would designate as suitable, would like to participate in the byfy, so that the Lojban discussions can benefit from whatever relevant experience the Loglanists have had with their version of the language. If in doing so, we make choices that enhance the rapprochement between the two communities, this would be ideal. (Note that the byfy is open to all members of the community, and is not necessarily limited in number. Thus McIvor, who has participated usefully on Lojban List, would be welcomed in any event. But I made the invitation explicit to show that we are trying to be inclusive and not exclusive. On the other hand, there is no question of even considering any significant changes to Lojban in order to remerge the two language. There have been ideas proposed that would allow the two versions to exist side by side or to transition back into a single language (which as far as we are concerned would be Lojban) - the alternate orthography is one, and was discussed in the refgrammar. Another that was discussed was assigning a cmavo as a dialect toggle, that would allow switching between the two versions. Other possibilities could be considered by the byfy, but I've told McIvor that there would not likely be much willingness to accomodate Loglan. The other side of the coin is that The Loglan Institute, since the death of JCB and his first successor Alex Leith a year later, is barely extant as an organization. It is not clear that it has a long term future, or that the TLI language version will survive in any form. In 1992, the voting members passed a resolution stating that "Lojban IS Loglan", and that remains my guiding standard. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org