loglan reform conlangs

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

And wrote:
>If you read Conlang, you'll see that the loglans have had an impact, to
>the extent that the preferred starting point for sketches of new
>experimental languages is now predicate logic rather than Latin.

Yes, but...

A major disadvantage of trying to start from Lojban and build a reform
is that by implication you have to outdo our effort (just as in order to
be credible, the Lojban effort had to outdo the level of detail and
design that JCB provided), or you have to come across as a half-designed
reform-clone by saying "do this and that and the other, and then do like
Lojban for all the rest."

My commitment to create a thorough prescrription for the language means
that (with a modicum of luck).  Lojban will not face much competition
from half-designed overnight rivals - a problem Esperanto has been
plagued with because it is too easy to design another Euroclone.  And
designing another Lojban-level design, EVEN if much is based on Lojban
as we have based much on JCB's work, would take many man-years (think
about how long it takes even to do a new gismu list alone if you are
going to credibly examine the places structures of each gismu - my most
recent reviews took months).  This gives Lojban a considerable breathing
room, with rather less likelihood for schism than some conlangs.  The
workload to schism is just too much.  Then you need the crucible of
100-odd Lojban-Listers banging on the language for another 5 years once
you have the language basics done, in order to PROVE that your new
design will hold up.

The impact that I hope we have most had on the conlang world is that:
thoroughness of design has become a minimum criterion for success.

(The second impact we are trying for - not yet resolved while Klingon
and TLI Loglan survive - is that "ownership" of a language is not
viable.)

lojbab