From xod@thestonecutters.net Tue Dec 10 12:06:51 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 20:06:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 6553 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 20:06:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 20:06:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 20:06:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LqeZ-0004Mu-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:06:51 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LqeP-0004Mb-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:06:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:06:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LqeK-0004Lg-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:06:36 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBAK67t08703 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:06:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:06:07 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) In-Reply-To: <20021210194722.GQ11342@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: <20021210150428.F8691-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3412 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > 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? Accidental. I meant that "Lojban is a language in the Loglan family", using Loglan for the family that contains TLI Loglan, LLG Lojban, and the other ones that never made it off the drawing board. -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.