zwicky response, also sent to eric's machine address for you

[marob!uunet!cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!lojbab (Bob LeChevalier)]

Zwicky finally replied, and he is clearly not an 'enemy' of the project like
JCB thought him to be.  I suspect that indeed he is quite well-disposed
towards us, based on what he wrote, and what he obviously thinks was a long
careful study-and-review that led to the published critique.  More ancient
history that needs to be re-written, and more historical evidence showing
what might have happened if JCB had not been so damned paranoid.
   At any rate, please bear this in mind when ever you get to writing your
response, and of course, we should send him the draft copy before we consider
publishing it ourselves or submitting it to Language.


Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 15:35:17 PST
From: cbmvax!uunet!csli.Stanford.EDU!zwicky (Arnold Zwicky)
To: lojbab@snark.thyrsus.com
Subject: reply

bob -
  you must have thought i was never going to answer your
message of (ouch) 25 october.  it fell to the bottom of
a pile of non-crisis things to do and might well just have
perished there.  some good can come from cleaning up desks
and files.
  incredibly enough, there are two zwickys who sometimes post to
sci.lang.  the other - zwicky@erg.sri.com and also
zwicky@cis.ohio-state.edu - is my daughter, however,
so that anyone who takes the last name to be a unique pointer is not
far off.
  i much enjoyed doing the loglan piece in 1968.  the task served
some important selfish purposes, mostly getting myself to think
in a systematic way about linguistic universals and the differences
between logical systems and natural languages.  along the way, i got
to say some (i think) usefully critical things about loglan.  but i
wasn't interested in loglan for its own sake, and the review took an
extraordinary amount of time for me to do - worth it then.  now i
think i have to use my time for other things.
  i'm sure you anticipated some such response.  i have occasionally
come across loglan/lojbab enthusiasts in linguistics, but i think
they've all been undergraduates or beginning grad students.  (not
entirely an accident, i'd guess; the project appeals naturally to
very bright and idealistic young people.)  have you tried posting a
request for reviewers on sci.lang?  (you might well have; i've been
obliged to `k' and `c' through a lot of stuff since the summer, so
that i could easily have missed it.)
  best wishes.
     - arnold

? R
To: cbmvax!uunet!csli.Stanford.EDU!zwicky
Subject: Re:  reply

Actually, I identified you as much through what you wrote, as well as the
name Zwicky, though I had thought that your daughter was you, anyway.
We have been talking up Lojban on sci.lang, but not seeking any sort of
definitive review, simply because we don't have a final documentation
of the sort of Jim Brown's book.  When we do, that will be the time for it.
I was more interested in seeing whether we had specifically addressed your
criticisms, which were the most detailed I've ever seen in print, never
answered by Jim Brown, and widely referenced by other critics of Loglan.
Some of these critics were involved in reviewing Brown's NSF proposals
in the 70's (but of course are unknown to us since they are anonymous reviews).
We will be again seeking finding, possibly from NSF, and any preparation
we can do to prevent people's misunderstandings of Loglan/Lojban, especially
in academia, would be helpful.

If we ever write our response to your review up as such, I'll send you an
advance info copy,so you can at your disgression correct any misunderstandings
we had of what you said.  Otherwise, feel free to pass my name and address
(net or postal) to anyone who mentions Loglan or Lojban to you.

Thanks much for responding.

.ioco'omi'e bab lecevalier.  (Respect/Partings/Self-Identification)

  --  lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
               2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
      lojbab@snark.thyrsus.com