Loglan - Institute, Generic, etc.

["61510::GILSON" <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!gilson!61510.decnet>]

The LLG has for some time had a dispute with the Loglan Institute as to
whether the term "Loglan" is solely applicable to the Institute's language
or a generic term including similar languages (specifically Lojban). Since
JL14, the LLG has felt vindicated by a court decision that the generic
interpretation is right. The Institute is, of course, unhappy even that
the term "Institute Loglan" is used to describe what they (JCB?) consider(s)
the only Loglan. While Both the Institute and LLG, of course, have the right
to promote their own languages, I wonder if anyone has thought through the
consequences that arise from considering "Loglan" as generic.

The first question that arises is: How close does a language have to be to the
language JCB defined in Sci. Am to qualify as a Loglan (or perhaps a loglan,
small "l," since if the word is generic, the capital is not appropriate)? Is
a predicate language without the CVCCV/CCVCV structures of Loglan's predicates
(Lojban's gismu) a loglan? I could imagine a language which used recognizable
Greco/Latin or pure Latin or Germano/Latin roots as does Glosa or Interlingua
or Esperanto/Ido/Novial/Intal, respectively, but with a predicate structure
similar to Loglan/Lojban.

Second: how are we to describe the original Loglan? It isn't even Institute
Loglan, because JCB and the Institute have made their own changes. I suppose
"1960 Loglan" will do there.

Third: Why does anyone who is pushing Lojban really _want_ to use the term
generically? It is a different language -- even if syntactically almost
identical -- and just as one wants to consider Esperanto and Ido as different
more often than to refer to them by a single word, most of the time one is
either talking about 1960 Loglan or Institute Loglan or Lojban, and the
occasions when one really wants to go generic one can talk of "logical lang-
uages."