Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: Steven Belknap <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 12:18:56 -0600

On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 10:14 PM, Logical Language Group, 
Inc. wrote:

> At 07:31 PM 11/30/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
>> I am not upset at the historical fact that Loglan is moribund. I
>> accepted this long ago and began learning the new language. I have 
>> read
>> about 3/4 of John Cowan's book. I have donated multiple copies of the
>> grammer to libraries, and filled out requests for the book in many
>> other libraries. There are 5 former Loglan fans who I've managed to
>> interest in lojban. Another dozen or so newbies that I've convinced to
>> buy the grammer or study the online materials. Whenever I meet 
>> somebody
>> who I think might be interested, I tell them about lojban.
>
> I have no question as to your support for Lojban.

> <snip>

>> I have posted to the lojban list many times in both English and 
>> lojban,
>> although less often since the birth of my children. I read the 
>> listserv
>> everyday. I visit Robin's lojban website everyday. I am teaching my
>> children lojban, although I have been frustrated at the lack of a
>> dictionary and better learning tools, particularly for children.
>>
>> There are many people who bought the original JCB Loglan books, but
>> were uninvolved in the political intrigues that led to the split
>> between lojban and Loglan. I believe it would be politically wise to
>> acknowledge Loglan in the baseline. Loglan is part of the history of
>> lojban.
>
> I agree with this. The explicit, albeit informal invitation to Bob 
> McIvor
> to participate in the byfy is some recognition of this. But the 
> members
> voted in 1992 that "Lojban is Loglan", and I think only the members can
> vote to officially retract that sentiment.

OK, as a member of the lojban community, I hearby propose that a 
resolution rescinding the "Lojban is Loglan" policy statement be 
considered by whatever mucky-mucks are appropriate to such a decision 
(members, board, or byfy).

>> I am not suggesting that any changes be made to lojban, only that the
>> lojban-Loglan relationship be addressed in the baseline. Why
>> unnecessarily alienate people who are very likely to be interested in
>> joining the lojban community?
>
> I don't think that anything has been done to explicitly alienate the 
> TLI
> community, and much that is not reportable has gone on behind the 
> scenes
> towards the contrary. But legally, we can do nothing with JCB's 
> language
> without explicit permission from TLI; I remain under a threat from 
> their
> lawyer merely because I prepared a list of corresponding cmavo from 
> the two
> versions with the intent of putting that list in an appendix to the
> dictionary. I believe that the current TLI management would not pursue
> that hostile approach to us, but we are extremely constrained between 
> the
> community's commitment to the Lojban baseline and the copyright claims
> dispute that originally engendered Lojban.

OK, so lets ask TLI to officially call off their legal dogs, patch up 
the differences, and make nice. Maybe they will give us their mailing 
lists. What harm could there be in asking?

Just because I don't post very often doesn't mean that I have lost 
interest in lojban. I just don't have time to write posts for anything 
but what I consider critical issues. I thought that fuzzy logic was one 
important issue. I think that healing the lojban-Loglan schism is 
another important issue. (And so conveyed my opinion to lojbab and also 
to JCB prior to his death.) I believe that lojban is important. It sure 
would be nice to have a dictionary...

-Steven