From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Sat Nov 30 11:29:45 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 19:29:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 74630 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 19:29:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 19:29:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO birch.cc.uic.edu) (128.248.155.162) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 19:29:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 14461 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 19:29:38 -0000 Received: from dial0-291.dialin.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.172.108) by birch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 19:29:38 -0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:29:30 -0600 Subject: Re: [lojban] Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=EUC-KR; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com To: Robert LeChevalier In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129203701.0312b050@pop.east.cox.net> Message-Id: <0C2532EB-049A-11D7-BAFA-000393629ED4@uic.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Steven Belknap X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 lojbab has told us the decision of the Board, but not their reasoning.=20=20 Lojban is Loglan? Bah, humbug. Vacuous nonsense. Vigorous assertion=20=20 convinces me of nothing. Loglan is dead, long live lojban? Well, maybe. = =20 But those who do not remember their past are condemned to relive it.=20=20 There is a substantial body of written Loglan text extant, which=20=20 despite flaws should not be completely ignored. I memorized every=20=20 blasted one of those Loglan predicates. I was pretty damned irritated=20=20 when I learned that this was all for not due to the fracture in the=20=20 Loglan community, and the subsequent moribund state of the parent=20=20 language. I can not support a lojban baseline policy statement which=20=20 does not cover Loglan. A joint lojban/Loglan toggling cmavo would=20=20 satisfy me. So would a formal autotranslate utility of some kind=20=20 (although some syntactic problems in Loglan would still have to be=20=20 fixed, if they haven't already been fixed.) What is the point of ignoring Loglan? This seems like pointless spite=20=20 towards a dead man. Whatever his shortcomings, JCB's memory deserves=20=20 better than this. In my conversations with him I was impressed by his=20=20 boundless optimism and creativity. I liked the guy. If this issue is=20=20 not resolved, I swear a mighty oath to use (wherever appropriate) the=20=20 word "simba" for "tiger" in all lojban communication henceforth. Bilti cmalo nirli ckela! -Steven On Friday, November 29, 2002, at 07:54 PM, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > At 04:47 PM 11/29/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote: >> The lojban baseline policy statement does not appear to explicitly=20=20 >> address >> the relationship between lojban and Loglan. The implication is that=20=20 >> the >> Loglan language and community is irrelevant to the new baseline=20=20 >> policy. >> Prior to voting, I would like comment from lojbab and other=20=20 >> movers/shakers >> on this issue. > > The Board explicitly chose to NOT mention the relationship between=20=20 > Lojban > and Loglan (and asked me to remove the small reference that I had made = =20 > to > the issue). > > I continue to communicate with Bob McIvor, the successor CEO of The=20=20 > Loglan > Institute, Inc., on ways in which the two communities can work=20=20 > 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 = =20 > 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,=20=20 > 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=20=20 > 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=20=20 > significant > changes to Lojban in order to remerge the two language. There have=20=20 > been > ideas proposed that would allow the two versions to exist side by side = =20 > or > to transition back into a single language (which as far as we are=20=20 > concerned > would be Lojban) - the alternate orthography is one, and was=20=20 > discussed in > the refgrammar. Another that was discussed was assigning a cmavo as a > dialect toggle, that would allow switching between the two versions. = =20 > Other > possibilities could be considered by the byfy, but I've told McIvor=20=20 > that > there would not likely be much willingness to accomodate Loglan. > > The other side of the coin is that The Loglan Institute, since the=20=20 > death of > JCB and his first successor Alex Leith a year later, is barely extant = =20 > as an > organization. It is not clear that it has a long term future, or that = =20 > the > TLI language version will survive in any form. In 1992, the voting=20=20 > members > passed a resolution stating that "Lojban IS Loglan", and that remains = =20 > my > guiding standard. > > lojbab > > --=20=20 > lojbab lojbab@lojban.org > Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. > 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA = =20 > 703-385-0273 > Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: = =20 > http://www.lojban.org > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20=20 > ---------------------~--> > =A2=B2FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com > http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/GSaulB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------=20 > ~-> > > To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to=20=20 > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ >