Subject: Re: [lojban] redherringfication of lojban

From: Elrond <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:55:17 +0200 (CEST)

> Since the death of James Cooke Brown, inventor 
> of Loglan, there have been calls for the 
> reunification of the Loglan and Lojban movements. I think it's a
> good idea,
I think so, too...

> and it's also an opportunity to make some changes in
> the basic structure of 
> the language(s) without reducing the advantages.
but this wouldn't be a very clever idea.

> What follows
> is a proposal I've formulated to send out to any interested
> persons: 
<snip>
> Redefine word-shape.
> Complexes will be made by simple juxtaposition
This would involve far too much work, and given the point reached by
Lojban so far, I just can't think of it.

> And, rather than derive vocabulary by the 
> traditional method, I recommend choosing words from languages, 
> beginning with the largest, based on how well they fit the word-shape,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <-- how are you
going to decide that ??? It would, for sure, introduce some cultural bias
in the language.

> as in 'blu' and 'faul' above. A quick look at English, Hindi, and Spanish 
> show that a _lot_ of vocabulary can be easily derived from just those 
> three languages. 
But when you take into account the three others (especially chinese) used
for building lojban roots, you can see that it is not "easy" any more. And
the specs of lojban are against shaping the language according to a
certain culture range.

> Finally, neither 'loglan' nor 'lojban' would fit the new word-shape, 
> so I suggest 'Braunlan,' in honor of JCB. 
Please do not take it as an offence to Dr. JCB, but I think this is an
*extremely* bad idea. Lojban has now reached its public-domain state
enough not to become one person's moral 'property' by *name*!!

I think that it is clear that uniting Loglan and Lojban now should *not*
start by changing the structures of the langages themselves. Moreover,
Lojban's langage structure is now officially (and
practically?) rigidified, while Loglan is not, AFAIK. I am not completely
aware of linguistic issues there, but I feel like we can only "add new
features" to Lojban now, and not remove or change anything.

I may be wrong; but it is sure that I (and I think I am not the only one)
would not be going to involve myself further into a language that seems
likely to change from times to times in order to "adapt" to such or such
mood of its leaders. Mind that many people to which I told of Lojban only
got really interested when they knew that the grammar was now rigid for
at least 5 years, because that means that the language was thought ready
enough to be actually used by people. 

co'o mi'e rafael