Subject: Re: [lojban] Loglan

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:37:41 -0500

At 12:06 PM 12/1/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
>On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 10:10 PM, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > Steven, I don't get what you want the baseline statement to day.
> >
> > That Loglan is ancestral to Lojban? Sure, but that's history, it has
> > nothing to do with the baseline.
>
>Yes it does. If things go well, the lojban baseline will also be the
>Loglan baseline.

>From what I have gathered based on McIvor's comments to me, JCB would 
oppose any sort of baseline. JCB would have agreed with And that the 
language should just keep changing as people come up with new ideas. It 
was the community that wanted a version of the language that (would be 
official and) would stop changing. Hence the baseline policy that I came 
up with in response to the couple dozen Loglanists who wrote to me write 
after I started trying to get the Loglan community back together (which led 
to Lojban).

> > That Lojban is Loglan? I've never accepted that either, but that is
> > current LLFG policy. I considered raising a motion against it, but
> > decided it honestly wasn't worth the effort.
>
>Possibility 1: lojban is Loglan. If so, then the baseline is the
>baseline for both languages.

If Lojban is Loglan, then JCB's stuff is irrelevant.

>Possibility 2: lojban is not Loglan. If so, then the baseline could
>serve to attract Loglanders to lojban if they are dealt with in a
>respectful manner. You are underestimating the importance of emotion in
>human decision-making.

I agree. The question that is open, is how many people are in the TLI 
community who would be responsive to any amount of respect. I agree with 
you that there are a lot more than 5, probably a few hundred, but all of 
them are inactive and it is unclear whether language modifications are the 
sort of "respect" that would attract them. The "respect" of according 
special respect to McIvor and accepting that the TLI community has learned 
something about Loglan/Lojban in the last 50 years that is worthy of 
consideration when we make decisions about Lojban's final form might cater 
to the emotions, and also might lead to better decisions - there was never 
a wise man who did not recognize the possibility of learning from history.

> > That there shall be a Lojban to Loglan toggle cmavo? The BPFK will
> > consider such a motion, and you already know there is at least one vote
> > against.
>
>The toggle cmavo will seem like a good idea to all those who read the
>1960s Scientific American article. ("Oh, I see, the community had a
>squabble and is now united. The language was flawed, but has been
>revised and is now believed to be stable. Good...") I realize it
>doesn't make much sense to waste a cmavo on a toggle from the pragmatic
>position that lojban is flourishing and Loglan is dying. But sometimes,
>perception is reality. Most artificial languages die due to schisms of
>one sort or another. It would be prudent to resolve this schism, as
>this will reassure artificial language enthusiasts that lojban is not
>going to mutate.

I agree that Loglan/Lojban has the unique opportunity among artificial 
language communities to resolve and close up a schism in a manner that 
leaves the community healthy, and that being able to brag about this would 
be a public relations advantage.

> An alternative to the toggle cmavo would be some means
>of formally describing the differences between the two languages and
>putting a mapping of the predicates to each other on the web site. I'm
>not suggesting this should be a high priority at the moment. Also, most
>of this work should be done by former Loglanders, I would think. Simply
>committing to do this at some point in the future and having the
>approval of the Loglanders to do so would be reassuring to newbies who
>fear the worst: memorizing a list of words only to have their hard work
>discarded for some stupid political reason. I was fairly pissed off
>about this when it happened to me.
>
> > That any work be done to merge Lojban and Loglan into the same
> > language, or even into similar languages? I have no interest in that,
> > and I doubt many Lojbanists dating from after the split (the clear
> > majority) do either.
>
>I am not interested in merging the languages. I've forgotten most of my
>Loglan anyway.
>
> > That we recognise Loglan is a sibling language, and that Loglanists may
> > have insights of value to Lojban? Doesn't do any harm, but I don't see
> > the big deal. McIvor is welcome to sit in on the BPFK, I suppose. But
> > he sits on it as a Lojbanist, not a Loglanist: I'm not doing a thing to
> > advance language merger, only to advance the interests of Lojban.
>
>McIvor is not on the BPFK, is he? Why not invite him? What about Alex
>Leith? What about tracking down those Russians? I understand that
>lojbab has some native Russian speakers in his house. :-)
>
> > Personally, I think the best respect to Loglan is done by leaving them
> > alone, to their own language. We're not at war, but I really don't see
> > the point in actively pinching people. A little bilingualism never hurt
> > anybody.
>
>Au contraire. I found abandoning my Loglan vocabulary painful.
>
> > So Steven, please clarify what you'd want.
>
>More wisdom than has been shown so far, nothing more.
>
> > (And btw, rejoice! We finally have an Academy [of sorts] :-) )
>
>Umm, well, I have no objection to the Academy as it was created. I
>posted extensively about this topic to the listserv about this in the
>past.
>
>And by the way, thanks for your work to more lojban forward. I do
>appreciate that.
>
>
>-Steven
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send mail to [email-masked]
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
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