Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tags

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:57:38 -0500

At 04:39 AM 12/10/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
> > If the board ever requests that I do this, I will immediately resign as
> > webmaster.
>
>That would be a shame, for Robin has done an excellent job with the web
>site.

Yes he has. Which is why he has little to fear us giving him reason to resign.

>I am quite fascinated with the hostility expressed towards TLI Loglan.

I don't think there is much hostility towards TLI Loglan. I think there is 
absolute indiffrence to TLI Loglan, and hostility towards YOU for trying to 
make an issue of something that the people in question had already settled 
in their mind.

To them, if they accept that TLI Loglan is a significant part of the 
heritage of Lojban, this means no more to them than Anglo-Saxon is a 
significant part of the heritage of English. "So what?" "Well there are 
all these Frisians out there that speak a dialect that is almost like 
English". "So what? They can learn English - I'm not interested in 
learning Frisian".

The historical roots of Lojban don't matter to them any more than the 
historical roots of English matter to most English speakers. Many 
Lojbanists are no more interested in TLI Loglan, than they are in any other 
artificial language. They may view an obsession with the historical roots 
of the language like they view an obsession with auxiliary languages: a 
waste of time.

We can convince them to reach out a welcoming hand to TLI Loglanists who 
want to become Lojbanists, but only because they want to become 
Lojbanists. They gain no special privileged status for having supported 
the other language: what have they done for Lojban?

I respect your desire to reach out to the TLI Loglan community, whether it 
be the small number working with the current language, or the hundreds left 
by the wayside in the last 5 decades. But your concept of Internet 
marketing is offensive to some in this community and possibly the other one 
as well, can be seen as competitive poaching on TLI while it remains still 
alive (thereby discouraging them from cooperating with us), thus offending 
some of the very Loglanists you might wish to recruit.

>The original reasons for this hostility are gone.

There never was hostility to the TLI Loglan language. There was hostility 
between JCB and myself and the other founders of LLG, hostility that had 
been downplayed to almost nonexistence by the time JCB had died, though JCB 
apparently left some pretty strong strictures against my ever being 
involved in TLI in any way (not that I'd have interest in same).

There is hostility to the whole game of "my language is better than yours" 
which is endemic to the artificial language community. Lojbanists are 
either interested in a variety of constructed languages, or they are 
interested in only one, Lojban, and don't even want to hear about any others.

> This hostility is now counterproductive. What explains this bizarre 
> xenophobia?

I think it is distractophobia. People want to move beyond what any 
connection with Loglan connotes for them.

>What explains the insertion of the phrase "lojban is Loglan" in lojban 
>official
>policy? (I am aware of the history of this phrase, I am asking whether
>there is a deeper explanation than the historical animus of that legal
>battle.) Was this some kind of "language murder"?

No. And indeed on rereading the 1991 minutes, I find that the phrase was 
in fact never adopted. Everyone believed it but we avoided officially 
adopting the words:

>Negotiations with the Institute:
>
>Agreements made at members meeting authorizing the split were re-read. It 
>was noted that we never got a positive response to our proposals.
>
>Discussion of "Do we still want to reconcile?" and "What would our aim 
>be?"; the latter especially in the light of the fact that we have both 
>gone public already.
>
>Art Weiners wishes it noted in the minutes that he would not vote the same 
>on item #3 (at that member's meeting) now as he did then.
>
>Much discussion and motions/amendments on actual wording of policy 
>regarding reconciliation. The original version was:
> * MOVED: That:
>A) The policy of LLG be to continue to express an expressed desire of 
>reconciliation with JCB and the Institute.
>B) There no longer be any special authority given to the pronouncements of 
>JCB or the Institute about the language. and
>C) Lojban is Loglan.
>
>Much of the discussion was on point C: over whether they could/would be 
>considered "fighting words"; whether we would be seen as not believing 
>that "Loglan" is validly applied to our language. The sense of the 
>attendees seemed to be that we did indeed believe that "Lojban is Loglan" 
>(or at least "... a Loglan"), but that, if they might be considered 
>fighting words, they would be counter-productive in a policy that 
>expresses a desire for reconciliation. This is all the secretary's reading 
>of what happened, put in for the benefit of those who were not present in 
>order that they understand the areas of controversy; there may be 
>differences of opinion with this reading.
>
>The final result was:
> * MOVED: That:
>A) Expending resources towards a reconciliation with JCB or the Institute 
>is not a good use of resources at this time, but we remain open to such a 
>reconciliation should their position change in the future. and
>B) There no longer be any special authority given to the pronouncements of 
>JCB or the Institute about the language. - PASSED.
In other words, the "Lojban is Loglan" vote basically said that we were 
going to put TLI and Loglan behind us. We weren't going to care about 
Loglan any more EXCEPT insofar as they made moves for 
reconciliation. Well, since JCB died, there has been a change in policy, 
and moves towards cooperation and reconciliation, but they are not enough 
for most people to want to resurrect the past.

>Is this shared revulsion towards Loglan by so many newbies a solidarity 
>ritual?

The revulsion is toward CARING about Loglan, which the "newbies" (who of 
course are making Lojban a real language) find irrelevant.

>How very tribal! Can we link it somehow to the upcoming winter solstice?
>Maybe we should all get tatooed or branded "mi lojbo"! Perhaps the most
>interesting observations about Loglan will be related to schisms and
>vestigial primitive thinking rather than to Sapir-Whorf.

Insulting your fellow Lojbanists is not likely to get them to share your 
viewpoint.

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