From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Wed Dec 04 07:21:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 4 Dec 2002 15:21:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 79540 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 15:21:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2002 15:21:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail009.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.137) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 15:21:57 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17180.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.40]) by mail009.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gB4FLuF20237 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:21:56 +1100 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:21:56 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: Some concerns from a Lojban beginner To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1FD5CBE3-079C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis Message: 6 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:57:14 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier Subject: Re: Some concerns from a Lojban beginner >> I thinks it's better to keep the languages separate and let people use >> the one they think is better. > > The main purpose of the toggle/incorporation proposal is that it > encourages > TLI Loglanists to transition to Lojban. Depending on how they > implement > the toggle and transition dialect, they can start using Lojban style > and > syntax, then start using Lojban cmavo, and then start using Lojban > vocabulary as they learn it. It makes switching that much less > painful. But no Lojbanist will understand them until they speak full Lojban; they'd be talking to themselves if they use Loglan lexis. That's perpetuating division, not eliminating it. Two way dictionaries etc. is a much more productive --- and honest --- way of addressing this. > More importantly, it de facto ends TLI Loglan as a separate > language without playing things out; even today there are people > trying to > revive Volapu:k which was effectively dead the day that Zamenhof > published > the Esperanto Fundamento. Bob, you should know better than to step on my turf. It took a couple of years for Volap"uk to start dying, and it was internal dissent with a dictatorial language planner that killed it, not Esperanto; Esperanto was simply in the right place at the right time. And the people reviving Volapuk are either conlang afficionados or antiquarian Esperantists. The analogy you're drawing with Loglan is spurious. It would be much more germane to draw an analogy with Ido: but Ido loses out by defining itself in terms of Esperanto. ("We're like Esperanto, only better!" --- a line that can only attract disaffected Esperantists, completely pointless for anyone else.) IMO, whatever the political motivations, Lojban loses by being defined publicly in terms of Loglan. Think how many sleeper cells you pick up by saying Lojban is a Loglan --- and then consider how much damage is done when Don Harlow, in his description of conlangs, sneeringly refers to "Loglan and its offshoot, Lojban." I recently wrote an article for an encyclopedia of linguistics, defining artificial languages. I mentioned 2 logical languages: Wilkins', and Lojban. I'm not describing Lojban as an offshoot of anything to anybody. We're our own language. I don't feel like reopening this debate, I was just reminded by the mention of Ido. And now that I've thought of it, the toggle really sends the wrong message, and will be unworkable anyway if Lojbanists don't learn Loglan. Do the wordlists instead (lawyers permitting). [][][][] [][][][][][][][][][] [][][][] Dr Nick Nicholas. opoudjis@optushome.com.au http://www.opoudjis.net University of Melbourne: nickn@unimelb.edu.au Chiastaxo dhe to giegnissa, i dhedhato potemu, ma ena chieri aftumeno ecratu, chisvissemu. (I Thisia tu Avraam)