From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Dec 07 11:05:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Dec 2002 19:05:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 42706 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 19:05:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2002 19:05:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 19:05:33 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021207190533.UYO2203.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 14:05:33 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021207134823.03a91d30@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 13:58:46 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Some concerns from a Lojban beginner In-Reply-To: <20021207081901.GO28980@digitalkingdom.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206183557.00a9c050@pop.east.cox.net> <1FD5CBE3-079C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> <1FD5CBE3-079C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20021206183557.00a9c050@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 12:19 AM 12/7/02 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:39:13PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > At 12:30 PM 12/6/02 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:21:56AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: > > > > 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 hadn't thought about it that way before. I think I agree. > > > > When Don Harlow or any Esperanto leader sneers, they make Esperanto > > look bad, not us. Lojban is indeed an offshoot of Loglan; indeed > > Lojban IS Loglan. Harlow says it, and I brag it. People who are > > willing to consider a logical language do not look down on us for > > being an "offshoot". And if we make a constructive peace with TLI, we > > will be the language schism that mended, and be able to sneer at them > > (if we should wish to be so impolite %^). > >I actually had no idea who Don Harlow was, at all. > >I just don't like being considered an offshoot of anything in that >sense; it can be made to sound derogatory. It can be. But we ARE an offshoot of Loglan, and the fact that we had the same goals largely determined the language as it is today. Some things like 5-letter gismu and 3-letter rafsi can ONLY be explained using the historical context. Meanwhile, we can turn that derogation around by being proud of our history (and in fact that is what I have been consistently doing for over a decade, winning some people over. Denying our history would seem to me like denying that I am my father's son. I am my own person as well, but I still inherited many of his traits. If Lojban is about to go through a period where it attempts to ignore its ancestry, then truly Lojban has reached its adolescence. When it grows up, it will realize that the past is still there and still important, and its existence never can truly be derogated. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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