Subject: Re: [lojban] Loglan

From: Nick Nicholas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:30:23 +1100

On Monday, Dec 2, 2002, at 19:44 Australia/Melbourne, Steven Belknap 
wrote:

> This "rather technical" document is primarily a political document, as 
> you implicitly concede in your previous post.

It still has no intrinsic need to encompass everything political that 
has happened in the world since 1803. Not an argument for mentioning 
Loglan in the document.

>> *shrug* Being seen to be poaching is not being seen to be respectful.
>> Like I said, you'd need to write up yourself what such a statement
>> would look like.

Which you still do need to.

> Poaching? What a horrible analogy! These are intelligent people who 
> were interested enough in Loglan to learn some of the language. They 
> are not dumb game animals. Loglan is dead. Maybe they would be 
> interested in learning the successor language. Maybe we can do some 
> things to facilitate that transition, or at least to make old 
> Loglanders feel welcome.

A brochure, a dictionary, I'm all for: they credit these people with 
choice and agency. Tell them by fiat that Loglan is dead, doing a 
takeover bid of the LLG's parent institution --- that I regard as 
disrespectful. But whatever. There are some things that can concretely 
be done; and if any lojbanist really wants them to happen, they have 
the moral obligation to make them happen.

(That means you, btw. Someone is going to have to bell this cat, like I 
keep saying, and it isn't going to be me.)

>> stable. And you will note that the baseline statement says little
>> about Loglan --- but a hell of a lot about stability.
> How "stable" was it to throw the complete vocabulary in the trash?

That was 15 years ago. We have been committed to stability since then, 
and Loglan never did, as Bob says. We assert in the document that this 
hasn't changed as far as Lojban is concern. Since the genesis of 
Lojban, it has been true. If you want to tell the Loglanists that 
Lojban is henceforth stable, go ahead, because it's true; but I'm not 
going to cover up the fact that it happened, and that Lojban is now a 
distinct language, so I just don't get why you're raising this.

> I understand why this was done, but it certainly is not very 
> reassuring to a newbie. Explicitly resolving the Loglan-lojban schism 
> will reassure potential learners that perhaps we are not going to do 
> the same thing to them again.

But WHAT do you want us to do? (All caps --- careful, I'm starting to 
sound like Bob.) Assert that Lojban = Loglan? We did 15 years ago. 
Approach the TLI asking for them to dissolve? Write transition 
materials? Say Loglanists are welcome? Be specific. "Resolving the 
schism" doesn't mean much on its own, particularly when the TLI is 
still very much an independent body, with its own free will.

>>> McIvor is not on the BPFK, is he? Why not invite him?
>> Bob expressly wants to invite him. I didn't, and if he is invited,
>> as far as I'm concerned, he's invited as a Lojbanist (or at the
>> least, as someone with expertise in Logical Language), not as a
>> Loglanist.
> I think you are being very foolish in not welcoming McIvor to lojban. 
> The man likely has something to contribute.

He's welcome as a Lojbanist willing to work for the aims of Lojban. 
Otherwise, how can he be?

>> Still not specific enough. Now, I want a draft brochure... :-1/2
> Those who do not remember their past are condemned to relive it.

I did not ask you to produce me a zen koan, Steven. I asked you to 
produce me the wording of this document you want to see done. You want 
it done, you do it, or find a like-minded ex-Loglanist to do it. 
Lojbanists who have no Loglan history have no inclination to write it, 
and no competence to. You're either part of the solution or part of the 
problem. Until you have something concrete to show for us to discuss, 
I'm not continuing this discussion; it is going around in circles, and 
my time is limited.

As for reliving the past, we're rather busy trying to avoid our own 
schism, right now. I'd say we have bigger fish to fry than this.

===
O Roeschen Roth! Der Mensch liegt in tiefster Noth! Der Mensch liegt in
tiefster Pein! Je lieber moecht' ich im Himmel sein! --- _Urlicht_
[email-masked] http://www.opoudjis.net
Dr Nick NICHOLAS, French & Italian, Univ. of Melbourne, Australia