From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Tue Dec 10 05:44:25 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 13:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 38391 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 13:44:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 13:44:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 13:44:24 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LkgS-0001u7-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:44:24 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LkgQ-0001to-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:44:22 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:44:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from birch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.162]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LkgL-0001tf-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:44:17 -0800 Received: (qmail 22283 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 13:44:16 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by birch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 13:44:16 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:36:08 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org To: araizen@newmail.net In-Reply-To: <3DF5BC34.4060701@newmail.net> Message-Id: <31C3CD5E-0C2B-11D7-A360-000393629ED4@uic.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3392 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 Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 04:04 AM, Adam Raizen wrote: > la djorden. cusku di'e > >> I'm not a LLG member, so I can't official propose this for the next >> meeting (afaik). However, as a member of the community I would >> like to ask that at the next LLG meeting the "lojban is loglan" >> statement be considered for revokation. > > There was a very difficult and expensive legal battle fought over this, > and those who participated in it would probably not want their effort > to > be nullified, and historically Lojban is related to Loglan, so at least > for those reasons it would probably be difficult to straight-out revoke > the "lojban is loglan" statement. I think that a clarification is in > order, though. I shall be most intrigued to learn of a "clarification" that refutes my assertion that Loglan is the English word for what lojbanistanis refer to as lojban in their native language. Do you have such a "clarification"? -Steven