Sally to Simon:
>Simon... it doesn't seem that you have been following this particular
>thread very well (which started as "Lunatic Again)."  If you had been,
>then you would take up your gripe here with my opponent, who doesn't think
>that applying the word "language" to an invented language is allowable in
>all cases.  I DO.

I'm not sure that you do .  I repeat your words of a few messages back:
>Well there you have it, Bob.  People say "my language" or "my city," and
>everybody knows that it's a fictional language or a fictional city.
>On   this   listserv.

"On this listserv" is not "in all cases".
If we are talking about a jargon of convenience to be used solely within the
conlang community, well, we are entitled to play Humpty Dumpty as long as
we all understand what is meant.  But if we reach out to  the outside
world (which in effect we do when we post Web pages and have a public
archive) we are not merely talking to people on this list.  And you then
need to support them claim for "in all cases", which is harder than
"on this listserv".

There is a good reason why many listservs have restricted archiving and
membership only by approval.  people won't understand because they
do not share the restricted context.

I don't disagree with much of anything you've written in the last few days
IN PRINCIPLE, but it is in pragmatics and the integrated sociology of the
conlang world with the "Real world" that I get hung up.

And if you want to label this then my "hang up", then I concede.  I don't
successfully cut out the real world when I get into conlanging, perhaps
because conlanging is so much a part of my everyday real world.

lojbab                                                [log in to unmask]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href=""
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.