Re: lojban evolution

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> >Jimc's silence appears to be relatively self-imposed; I rather wish he
> >would tout guaspi a bit more on this list. I might be willing to
> >consider guaspi to be lojban.
> You can consider anything you like to be anything you like, but I doubt
> that jimc does. Discussion of gua spi might be appropriate for conlang.
> But "touting it" would be as inapproproate as touting TLI Loglan, if
> not more so, because jimc changed the name in part because he himself
> no longer considered the language to be Loglan as opposed to evolved
> from Loglan.

One can indeed consider whatever one likes to be whatever one likes. The
important issue is whether one is correct. In this case, it may not
depend on what jimc thinks, since his view on whether guaspi is lojban
will of course be influenced by what he thinks lojban is. Anyway, what
I meant was that it may be that in certain respects guaspi has come
closer to satisfying some goals and principles of lojlan. If loglan
is understood as a set of goals and principles, rather than as specific
attempts to satisfy them, then it may be that guaspi is loglan, and
tli loglan and llg lojban are inferior less evolved versions.
Note that I say "may be the case"; I know little about guaspi, and
don't always think jimc is right.

> Lojban IS Loglan.

Is that equative BE, so the sentence is like "Cicero is Tully",
rephrasable as "Loglan is Lojban", [meaning: The two terms denote
the same thing] or is it predicative BE, like in "Gluttony is vice"
[meaning: Lojban belongs to the class of loglans] or is it like
"Clinton is the president" [meaning: it is lojban that is the true
incarnation of the loglan spirit]? Or is it deliberatelly intended
to suggest all these meanings?

coo, mie and