From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue Dec 10 13:04:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 21:04:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 93696 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 21:04:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 21:04:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 21:04:40 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.38] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A7102B0000AA; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:05:20 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: html tag ethics Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:04:39 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021210055644.03166600@pop.east.cox.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.38] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >>Lojban is not Plan C, but both *officially* fall under the heading of Loglan. >> >>However, nobody uses the name "Loglan" except to mean TLI Loglan, which is >>*not* the same as Lojban. >The official name of this language, in English, is "Lojban - A Realization >of Loglan". >But who uses official names. My point exactly. Lojban is a Loglan, but when Loglan is used, unqualified, as the name of a language it is interpreted as TLI Loglan. >> Even you refer to "Loglan", meaning TLI's implementation of JCB's idea, >We officially use "TLI Loglan" to refer to JCB's language. If we were to >only use "Loglan" to refer to JCB's language, and only use "Lojban" for >ours, we could undo the court-ruling that "Loglan" is generic. "Loglan" is two things. It is a word for any of the logic-based languages, and it is a name for the one made by TLI. In the first form it is generic; the second term is unnoficial but widely used; I doubt there is anyone on this list who has not used the term that way before. >> >=> using keywords in the meta description tag which is not related to the >> >page content" >> >> >Loglan is certainly "related" to lojban. Some people say lojban *is* Loglan. >> >(I think they are different words in different languages for the same >> thing.) >> >>You know full well that's not the kind of relationship they mean. >I don't think he does. Then I'll clarify. Discussions of Lojban (the LLG language) are often not germane to Loglan (the TLI language). The two are related, but the name widely associated with TLI Loglan should not be a meta tag.