Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Loglan

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 02:25:58 -0500

At 02:58 AM 12/6/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>Bob McIvor:
> > On Mercredi, déce 4, 2002, at 19:52 US/Eastern, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > Bob McIvor:
> > >> Most newcomers to TLI have looked at both languages before deciding
> > >> to go with TLI
> > >
> > > I'm curious as to what their reasons were. Do you know?
> >
> > One commonly expressed reason is the appearance of the written
> > language. Another is the proliferation of cmavo
> > whose semantics and usage, are constantly debated
>
>Is this because fewer people are around to debate Loglan cmavo, or
>because debate happens behind closed doors, or because the semantics
>and usage of Loglan cmavo is more settled? If Loglan is more settled,
>how was that achieved? And do you think that BF should consult
>Loglan solutions for insights?

Bob can of course clarify his intent, but my correspondence suggests to me 
that the mere fact that we expend so many hot electrons debating things 
gives the impression that Lojban is unstable and everchanging (and also 
that we are a bunch of intolerant and verbose hotheads). TLI Loglan, even 
though it is less committed to stability, had little or no debate (other 
than perhaps in the Academy), public or private - people were used to 
accepting decrees from God aka JCB.

I suspect that TLI has incorporated few solutions that we would find 
insightful, if we are considering solutions, all possibilities are worthy 
of consideration, and one that might have seen usage in their community has 
slightly more credibility than an arbitrarily invented new concept that no 
one has actually tried to use. That is one reason why I thought Bob's 
participation in the byfy would be useful.

lojbab

-- 
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