From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 09 17:53:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 01:53:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 96014 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 01:53:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 01:53:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 01:53:59 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LZax-00051f-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:53:59 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LZau-00051M-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:53:56 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:53:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LZap-000516-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:53:51 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.38] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A94B822004C; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:54:19 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: What is the meaning of Loglan? Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:53:51 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <3E050E8B@webmail.uic.edu> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.38] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 3371 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: raganok@intrex.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: raganok@intrex.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out >Henceforth, I will refer to LLG's flavor of the language as Loglan when >writing in English and lojban when writing in lojban. I thank my >correspondents for pointing out my previous, erroneous practice. It is only erroneous viewed through a prescriptivist lens: the court says Loglan includes Lojban, LLG says Lojban "is" Loglan. If you want to be understood, you must look descriptively at the language you are writing in - in this case, English as used by Lojbanists. You will see that "Loglan" and "Lojban" have different referents. If you use one where the other is meant, people will look at you funny.