From rmcivor@macsrule.com Sat May 13 11:47:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24973 invoked from network); 13 May 2000 18:47:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 May 2000 18:47:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO granger.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.148) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 May 2000 18:47:29 -0000 Received: from [216.192.98.57] (mid-qbu-nqf-vty57.as.wcom.net [216.192.98.57]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA08963; Sat, 13 May 2000 14:47:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: rmcivor@m3.sprynet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <8fh6oa+dvo1@eGroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 22:04:08 -0400 To: Elrond , michael helsem Subject: Re: [lojban] redherringfication of lojban Cc: lojban@egroups.com From: "Robert A. McIvor" At 17:55 +0200 12/5/00, Elrond wrote: >> 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... > However, the suggestion made by Rex May received the same sort of reception on the Loglan side, as Elrond has stated > >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. > Loglan is not rigidified, but on the other hand, it is not changing according to the mood of its leaders. For many years the few alterations that have been made have been extensions to the language rather than changes of existing forms. While Dr. Brown was alive, any changes had to be approved unanimously by an Academy. The baselining of Lojban makes it unlikely that any reunification of the movements will occur. However, a cooperative rather than an adversarial attitude may well be achievable. Sincerely, Robert A. McIvor (rmcivor@mac.com)