Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: html tag ethics

From: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:04:39 -0500

>>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.