From wtanksle@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Wed Apr 21 09:20:57 1999 X-Digest-Num: 120 Message-ID: <44114.120.672.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:20:57 -0700 From: William Tanksley [wtanksle wrote:] > >BTW, I just noticed that the loglanists are hosted from my school, UCSD. > >Do you guys meet on campus? Still curious... > >I don't find it too suprising, simply because the project approaches are > >so dissimilar. The Loglanders (if I may) have a non-fixed language which > >can be tinkered with and improved; the Lojbanistanis have a static > >language which can be studied. We (as always) have quite a bit to learn > >from the results of our studies, but very little to help the studies > >themselves. > >If there's any suprise to be found, it's that Lojban was started from > >something as seemingly unsuited to it as Loglan (no insult intended, let > >me explain). Lojban, as far as I can tell, was intended to be a free > >language, like Linux is a free OS. It's odd that the founders used > >Loglan, a non-free (copyrighted with trade secrets) language as a basis. > That's what history looks like from the rear. It didn't happen that way. That's a newbie's impression gained by reading most of the web pages, which is all I have available. I assume from your words that you know how it actually happened; I'm all ears. Such documentation would, I suspect, be a good thing to post on both web pages. I suspect that if done right it would help to heal some parts of the rift (although as I said before, I don't think the two languages will ever merge). > >> I can imagine such benefits - in cross-fertilisation, and indeed in > >> coordinated difference. If Lojban goes one way and Loglan another in > >> some respect, this might be interesting. It might be even more > >> interesting were we to say "We'll try doing this in our version and you > >> do that instead, and let's see what effects they have". > >One problem is that Lojban has (AFAIK) nothing whatsoever to gain from > >such an experiment -- its definition is frozen, and will not admit change > >for at least five years. > Its definition may be frozen, but do you suppose that stops people > tinkering with it? The point is that we know that any suggestions we > make (that touch the matter which has been baselined) cannot become part > of the language, at least until the next baseline. That doesn't stop us > 'exploring' as you put it. Nothing stops anyone -- we're all free agents. We still generally start out wanting to do something, and choosing the best tool for that job. If you want to modify a language, you'll prefer a language which is open for modification. > >The Loglanders would indeed do well (I suspect) to watch Lojban and > >imitate the successes while shunning the mistakes -- but how can we tell > >the differences? Artificial selection doesn't work when we don't have a > >selection criterion. > There are probably not going to be many objective mistakes. But there > can be subjective preferences, and sometimes things that usage shows > work better or not so well. That's the hope. Well, good luck to us all. > | Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK | -- -William "Billy" Tanksley "But you shall not escape my iambics." -- Gaius Valerius Catullus