Subject: Re: Loglan

From: Nick Nicholas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:18:38 +1100

Steven, this is going around in circles, and I still don't get what 
you want. What I can extrapolate you want, I'm either indifferent to, 
or I reject. There's no disputing that (a) if you come across from 
Loglan to Lojban, you're going to have to relearn all your gismu; and 
(b) most Lojbanists have no interest in learning Loglan gismu to 
accomodate Loglanists.

Now, if you think this means we should stop saying Lojban is Loglan, 
then that becomes an issue for a distinct membership statement, and 
someone should raise it at the next general meeting. (The board, from 
what I understand, cannot rescind a membership statement.) But if you 
vote against the current board statement on the baseline because it 
ignores Loglan, I still have to ask: why should it mention Loglan? 
The current board statement doesn't mention the invasion of Iraq 
either, or the congressional elections. It is specific to how the 
Lojban baseline works. And Lojban has its own grammar, and its own 
baseline, and its own community pressures: it is a distinct entity, 
which needs to put its own affairs in order. We have already agreed 
that what goes into the baseline will not be decided by the prospect 
of compatibility with Loglan --- you've said so yourself. We've also 
said that individual Loglanists can participate in the BPFK, and 
we've said under what auspices.

Now, if we should be saying more to attract Loglanists to the 
language, this we can discuss. But I do not see what on earth that 
has to do with the baseline statement --- unless even a jot of the 
language changes to acommodate Loglan. Which, if I have anything to 
do with it, it will not. If Loglan does something better, then I'm 
happy to consider it, because then it's in Lojban's interest to 
follow suit. But I will not regard compliance with Loglan as a 
legitimate end in itself for any proposed changes.

So what would you have us say to loglanists? "We will not change our 
language a jot to accomodate you (which we won't), but rest assured 
that it's similar enough to Loglan that you can pick it up easily"? 
Well, that may be true, but why is that offer particularly tempting?

Steven, we're chasing phantoms here. Why don't you concretely write a 
paragraph which you think we should be passing as the LLG; and we can 
evaluate that.

The implication you seem to be making, btw, is that, because we said 
"Lojban is Loglan" 15 years ago, everything the LLG says officially 
has to pay attention to Loglan. One could argue that, if Lojban is 
Loglan, then it is doing exactly that --- because it *is* defining 
Lojban, which is Loglan. But that's casuistry. What you're asking for 
is some recognition, I suppose, of TLI Loglan.

Well recognition doesn't cost us anything. "Lojban is conceived in 
the same spirit as Loglan and with the same goals, and has 
significant structural overlap with Loglan; we welcome people 
interested in Logical Languages to investigate our language." Didn't 
cost me a farthing to type that. But:

(a) if you come across from Loglan to Lojban, you're going to have to 
relearn all your gismu;
(b) I have no interest in learning Loglan gismu to accomodate Loglanists.

That's non-negotiable. Leave my Lojban as Lojban, and tell the 
Loglanists whatever you want.

...

At least, you can. The LLG can, too. But personally, I think this 
whole poaching Loglanists business is sleazy. If the TLI regard as an 
adversary, they're not giving us jack --- permission to compile a 
two-way glossary, their membership list, this all hinges on their 
consent and good will. (Remember, Bob was blocked by lawyers from 
preparing a two-way dictionary in the first place. We can ask the TLI 
if that block still stands, if you want; if someone wants to prepare 
such a dictionary, I may or may not regard it as pointless, but I'm 
not very well going to stop them.)

But if they do not regard us as an adversary now, us poaching their 
members would certainly make them regard us as an adversary. I know 
how I'd react if I saw a loglanist on the lojban list recruiting. 
Whatever expediency you or Bob see to recruiting committed 
Loglanists, to me it looks nothing but disrespectful. Both you and 
Bob seem to be thinking about a reunification which involves us 
compromising nothing; in effect, we'd be asking the Loglanists to 
disband the TLI, abandon their language institutionally and 
officially, and join with us. Only that way would there be no two 
loglans, and no change in Lojban. I think that scenario distasteful, 
and oppose it. You or Bob can ask McIvor or whoever about whether the 
TLI does it, and the membership or board can vote this into being LLG 
policy. But to me, it is shriekingly arrogant. If Loglan is to die, 
I'd rather it die like the craggish hermit on the mountain --- than 
like Pan-Am.

And the phantom Loglanists, the ones not active in Loglan? *shrug* 
Maybe we could do a flyer or something ("Lojban: just like the Loglan 
you know, only used"); but I honestly can't see the TLI giving us 
their address list. In fact, I would lose even more respect for them 
if they did sell themselves out like that. Again, I'd bounce this 
back to you, since you want to see this happen: what would you say in 
such a flyer? Feel free to draft one, and we can debate the wisdom of 
it.

Don't expect me or xod to draft one, though, 'cause we don't care 
about this. Sorry, but we don't; we have no emotional investment in 
Loglan. And in this community, if you want to get something done, you 
should know by now you gotta do it yourself.

-- 
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies [email-masked] *
University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the *
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****