Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan

From: Robert McIvor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:02:40 -0500

On Lundi, déce 2, 2002, at 00:18 US/Eastern, Nick Nicholas wrote:

> 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.

That extent of recognition would be sufficient to satisfy me

> At least, you can. The LLG can, too. But personally, I think this
> whole poaching Loglanists business is sleazy.

I agree.

> 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.

I think the active hostility to LLG by TLI died with JCB. I made
it one of my conditions for accepting to be CEO of TLI that I would
cooperate with LLG, which was accepted by the Trustees. There
is no objection on my part to preparing a two-way dictionary. As
for the membership list, would LLG provide TLI with their membership
list so we could attempt to poach their members? I think not.

> (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.)
>
> 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.

But if it does die, and Lojban still exists, then I would like to
see it continue to recognize its Loglan heritage.