From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Tue Dec 10 14:12:06 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 22:12:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 45898 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 22:12:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 22:12:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 22:12:05 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Lsbl-0006AH-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:12:05 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Lsbl-00068z-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:12:05 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:12:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Lsbd-00068S-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:11:57 -0800 Received: (qmail 11786 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 22:11:50 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 22:11:50 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:11:29 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: tags Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <200212102041.PAA05250@mail2.reutershealth.com> Message-Id: <551264C4-0C8C-11D7-A99A-000393629ED4@uic.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3419 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Steven Belknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 02:28 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Steven Belknap scripsit: > >> 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.) > > As the person who proposed that language at an LLG meeting long ago, I > will > say that it was primarily a reaction to JCB's "Lojban is not/is a > knockoff of > Loglan". > > Today I might make it "Lojban is a Loglan". I like that better. -Steven