Re: lojban '

[John Cowan <cowan@MAGPIE.LL.PBS.ORG>]

la lojbab pu cusku di'e

> > Notwithstanding this, the "h" is recognized as an alternate to apostrophe as
> > part of a larger system of alternate orthography that is used to make the
> > language look more similar to other forms of Loglan.  People who are writing
> > in that alternate orthography are welcome to use the "h",

la .and. cusku di'e

> Is this correct? I can't get access to the alternative orthography right
> now, but I would have expected that "h" would be an alternative to
> "x" if rapprochement with aboriginal Loglan were being sought.

Lojbab is wrong and And is correct.  "h" is the representation for Lojban
/x/ in the TLI-compatible orthography.  The TLI-compatible representation
of apostrophe is typically nothing, but in the ambiguous cases
it is ",", i.e. close-comma.

> [Incidentally, if people really are making an effort to seek rapprochement
> with TLI Loglan, how come Lojbanists don't post their conciliatory
> or reconciliatory ideas to the Loglanists list? Granted that there
> is a message on that list once in a blue moon, but when there is it
> isn't from an active Lojbanist. (An exception is a recent message
> from Colin Fine, who coyly mentions "a certain other version of
> Loglan", which was taking treading on eggshells a bit far, I
> thought.)]

There is a general feeling that if anybody mentions Lojban openly on
loglanists@ucsd.edu, there will be an explosion of demons -- from the
nose or otherwise -- and the offender may be summarily dropped from the list.
Lojbab was dropped, it seems, solely because his fullname is "Logical Language
Group", which is appropriate considering that the account is a business one.

You underestimate the extent to which JCB despises Lojban in general and
Bob LeChevalier in particular, even to the extent of denying him credit
for those parts of (current Institute) Loglan for which he is in fact
responsible.