From pycyn@aol.com Tue Apr 18 02:02:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4603 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2000 09:02:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Apr 2000 09:02:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo14.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.4) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2000 09:02:50 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.16.2a3db4b (4360) for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:02:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16.2a3db4b.262d7eb0@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:02:40 EDT Subject: Reviews To: lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33 X-eGroups-From: Pycyn@aol.com From: pycyn@aol.com A reference for the review and mentioned would still be handy. Loglan got some thoroughly mixed reviews in the late70's- early 80's (i.e., for a language barely visibly related to either TLI's or LLG's current offerings) by Zwicky in Language, I think. And, of course, the NSF proposals got very bad reviews (though not generally for their linguistics) throughout the 80's.