From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Tue Dec 10 05:43:38 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 13:43:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 94303 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 13:43:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 13:43:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 13:43:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Lkff-0001tC-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:43:35 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LkfZ-0001ss-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:43:29 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:43:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from birch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.162]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LkfU-0001sj-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:43:24 -0800 Received: (qmail 22242 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 13:43:22 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by birch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 13:43:22 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:21:51 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan google hits. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org To: rizen@surreality.us In-Reply-To: <20021209162552.49f25548.rizen@surreality.us> Message-Id: <33012FEF-0C29-11D7-A360-000393629ED4@uic.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3391 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Steven Belknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 06:25 PM, Theodore Reed wrote: > On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:01:46 -0800 > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >> So, I don't think that anyone searching on loglan will have to do too >> much work to find lojban... >> >> -Robin > > Just like me. > > In Robert A Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast", loglan is mentioned > in > the context of programming languages. It sounded familiar, and I > thought > maybe it was a dialect of fortran (heh!), so I hit google to find more > info about it. I quickly found the loglan web site, and some other > sites. I also found the lojban site, but at first, it seemed like a > half-assed remake of loglan (alas, I can't remember the reason for this > opinion anymore, it may have been the years old "we're working on this > wordlist/book/etc" notices). So I started learning loglan. > > After a week or so, I wondered how big of a community loglan had, and > could find virtually no online presence beyond the official site. It > was > this fact that lead me back to lojban. I took a longer look at it, and > then discovered the IRC channel, and a thriving wiki and several sites. > A community! I kept on with learning lojban instead of loglan, and came > to realize that it was certainly not a half-assed version of loglan, > and > it had the important advantage of actually having people with whom I > could converse in it. > > So, there you have a large part of why I don't think loglan should be > at > all relevant to lojbanists, except as historical data . OOH, you were so close! The word Loglan *is* relevant to LLG Loglan (which you call lojban) in that a google search should reflect reality. Many people will do as you and I did: use a search engine to find out about LOGLAN. When they do, they should find LLG Loglan since LLG Loglan is a vital language with an active community while TLI Loglan is moribund. That fact should be reflected in google searches. Most people click on the first hit if it appears to be relevant to their search.