Re:

[Michael Urban <cbmvax!uunet!hercules!rand.org!urban>]

Since my name was mentioned in vain, or vane, or vein, or somewhere, I
guess I should say something.

Excerpts from mail: 26-Jun-91 "STEVE L RICE"@ALASKA.BI (2034)

> In view of my increasing alarm at certain problems, and the evident
> impossibility of getting much of a hearing, I tried to drop out of the
> mailing-list and out of lojbania (or whatever you call it).  I am told
> that I am the only linguist at TLI.  I find this rather hard to believe,
> but even if it's true, the instinct for language is unusually strong.
> Here, the people who do have an understanding of language are either
> shouted down or ignored, for the most part.  Shoulson, Urban, and to
> a lesser extent jimc (who seems impervious to criticism) aren't given
> the attention they deserve.  They're your brightest members; don't cast
> them aside. 

Well, that is very flattering, but fairness -- and not mere modesty --
dictates that I correct you here.  I have posted exactly one message to
the Lojban list in the past year (a bit of skepticism relating to finely
distinguished roots for `mother').  I have occasionally sent some
messages to _individuals_ on the list, including Steve, when these
messages were of little interest to the general list members, or were
misgivings about one or another aspect of the language that I felt were
either out of step with the general Lojban community or simply formally
unsupportable (such as my aesthetic dislike of Lojban).  But I certainly
would not consider myself as someone whose ideas have been `cast aside'
or anything similar.  Just an interested observer.

Incidentally -- or not, depending on how important you think the matter
is -- I do tend to agree with Steve about the use of the name `Loglan'. 
Regardless of the legal status of `Loglan' as a Trademark, it seems
quite clear to me, at least, when someone uses the word `Loglan', that
they are referring to the language that is promulgated by the Loglan
Institute, unless the context is such that they might be referring to a
Polish computer language or whatever.  Lojbab's claim that he is simply
attempting to distinguish TLI's language from all them other Loglans is
either disingenuous, or a result of over-exposure to logical languages. 
In the latter case, perhaps we should remember that in ordinary human
discourse, we can and do rely on other people's knowledge, rather than
exact precision of language, to resolve these minor ambiguities; it is
why I can refer to `Bush' in a political discussion, rather than having
to say `President George Bush' every time to distinguish him from
Barbara or mulberry.  It might also be observed that Ido, whose speakers
considered it to be the logical successor to, and best revision of,
Esperanto, did not go around referring to their language as `Esperanto',
or `an Esperanto', nor did they start referring to Esperanto as `Academy
Esperanto' or any such silliness -- this in spite of the fact that
Esperanto was in the public domain and not a Trademark.  To do so would
have been both rude and confusing.

	Mike