Re: jbobau (Was: use "lojbau" not "lojban")

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

Colin:
CF> (I prefer jbobau, or lojbybau if I think the recipient
CF> is likely to have trouble recognising that).
CF>
CF> 'lojbau' is 'logji bangu' (logical language - and let's not suppose
CF>         lo jbobau is that zo'o je'unai)

We we're faced with a chicken-egg situation in making the name of the language.
We decided to use JCB's metaphor for historic reasons, and I think that
logjybangu is therefore a firmly established lujvo for the concept of Lojban
modulo my own comments to And on name vs. predicate.  I think of jbobau as
being more the language of the little Lojbanists that JCB and I have at times
heard  chittering away in the back of our brains rather than the language
that any human being actually speaks, or is likely to speak in the near future.

(By chicken and egg situation, I mean that we need to make the word for
Lojban before we could come up with a rafsi for it that could be used in
making the word.  Jboban would be quite self-referential.)

Now I admoit that there may be some use in a concept for logical languages in
general, or we may want to say that "lojbau" is the broader concept that
includes TLI Loglan and all of the other versions of Loglan that have existed,
and use jbobau when we want to be more restrictive to specifically the "pure"
version of the language.  I could live with this, but still feel that most
references to the language are still as labels rather than as predicates.

So I see 4 concepts that we can have words for:
The language as spokne by the little Lojbanists
The pure form of the language as it is ikely to enbd up when it has real
 speakers
The broader concept of "loglans" that include the historical Loglan.
The concept of a "logical language", which would probably need to have a
place talking about what cvharacteristics make it be perceived as being
"logical"

lojbau/lojban is the third of these
jbobau is either the first or second of them or both

lojbab