From xod@thestonecutters.net Sat Nov 30 11:59:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 19:59:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 39786 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 19:59:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 19:59:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 19:59:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IDlm-0006bj-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:59:18 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IDlg-0006bM-00; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:59:12 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:59:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IDlY-0006bD-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:59:04 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAUJwYv48347 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:58:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:58:34 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy In-Reply-To: <0C2532EB-049A-11D7-BAFA-000393629ED4@uic.edu> Message-ID: <20021130143249.K47281-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2798 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Steven Belknap wrote: > lojbab has told us the decision of the Board, but not their reasoning. > Lojban is Loglan? Bah, humbug. Vacuous nonsense. Vigorous assertion > convinces me of nothing. Loglan is dead, long live lojban? Well, maybe. > But those who do not remember their past are condemned to relive it. > There is a substantial body of written Loglan text extant, which > despite flaws should not be completely ignored. I memorized every > blasted one of those Loglan predicates. I was pretty damned irritated > when I learned that this was all for not due to the fracture in the > Loglan community, and the subsequent moribund state of the parent > language. I can not support a lojban baseline policy statement which > does not cover Loglan. A joint lojban/Loglan toggling cmavo would > satisfy me. So would a formal autotranslate utility of some kind > (although some syntactic problems in Loglan would still have to be > fixed, if they haven't already been fixed.) So you're upset at the historical fact that Loglan is moribund, and you want a Lojban baseline policy to "cover Loglan" but offer no justification except possibly to recover your lost hours learning Loglan words, and then you call for a toggle cmavo which exists already but yet was never once seriously used (to my knowledge), and you imply that the Lojban community is somehow responsible to steward the Loglan community's corpus. And finally, you close by calling for someone else to build software which you're not sure is possible to build at all because of your lack of familiarity with current Loglan. > What is the point of ignoring Loglan? This seems like pointless spite > towards a dead man. Whatever his shortcomings, JCB's memory deserves > better than this. In my conversations with him I was impressed by his > boundless optimism and creativity. I liked the guy. If this issue is > not resolved, I swear a mighty oath to use (wherever appropriate) the > word "simba" for "tiger" in all lojban communication henceforth. I don't actually recall ever seeing any Lojban communication from you. I'm sure JCB was a wonderful man and a role model for us all, but Lojban baseline policy is not the place to eulogize him. Some of us (I can speak for Nick and I) are seriously UN-interested in Loglan, and we vigorously resisted any hint that Lojban would twitch for that ancient dream of rapproachment. -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.