[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la .and. cu cusku di'e
Incidentally, there is a difference between (A) a version of Lojban tinkered with enough to make it a loglang and (B) an ergonomically adequate loglang. In this message I have been discussing (B). But it's (A) that would liberate diehard conservative lojbanists from tinkering. Forking Lojban will lead to (A) not to (B). I think the world needs (B).
Everytime you say that ("lojban is not a loglang", "lojban is a terrible language" :P ), I die a little inside, even though I think I agree with you that one can do much better than Lojban did. The thing is just that I'm working on big Lojban projects and most of my free time is spent thinking about the language and related projects, so that each time I hear how bad Lojban is, there is a voice inside me that wants to agree, but at the same time it makes me question the very point of spending time with Lojban at all, and if it's worth all this effort and time. I'm scared that all I've done will be meaningless at some point in the future when it turns out that Lojban just wasn't "it".
(I might be giving Lojban an unhealthy amount of importance in my life) --selpahi