From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Tue Dec 10 14:27:44 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 22:27:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 13506 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 22:27:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 22:27:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 22:27:44 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Lsqu-0006US-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:27:44 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Lsqs-0006UB-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:27:42 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:27:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Lsqj-0006Tq-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:27:33 -0800 Received: (qmail 14575 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 22:27:27 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 22:27:27 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:27:06 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: let's get rid of this lojban == loglan crap (was Re: tags) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org In-Reply-To: <20021210185519.GO11342@digitalkingdom.org> Message-Id: <83AB0CC0-0C8E-11D7-A99A-000393629ED4@uic.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3422 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 12:55 PM, 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. > > -Robin I like John Cowan's better: "lojban is a Loglan." "Omit needless words!" -Strunk & White -Steven