From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Dec 10 11:47:39 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 19:47:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 28463 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 19:47:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 19:47:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 19:47:38 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LqLy-0003UZ-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:47:38 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LqLn-0003UB-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:47:27 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LqLi-0003Tx-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:47:22 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:47:22 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) Message-ID: <20021210194722.GQ11342@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20021210185519.GO11342@digitalkingdom.org> <20021210135837.Q6796-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021210135837.Q6796-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 3409 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:59:24PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:13:30PM +0200, robin wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > How about something like "Lojban is a variant of Loglan". Or > > > "development" or whatever. > > > > Sounds good to me. > > Or that Lojban is a language in the Lojban family. Was the redundancy in that sentence deliberate or accidental? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi