Re: existing ways to fuzz?

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

> > I note that John proposed an innovation to handle fuzziness.
> I haven't followed the discussions carefully on this issue.  But my
> understanding at one point was that John was proposing the use of a
> conventional interpretation of existing Lojban grammatical usage to
> accomplish the goal. No new cmavo; no new grammar. If the problem is
> accomplished throughusage conventions, then it is accomplished using
> existing resources.

His proposal most certainly amounts to innovation, and not mere
usage conventions.

> I also understand that pc feels at least as strongly as I do that the
> language does have sufficient resources.

He has said that obliquely, as is his way, but has done nothing to
substantiate it. He did, rightly, say that a lot of the thinking
about fuzz was woolly. But I made two concrete proposals that were
there as a basis for debate and attack, and so far they remain ignored
due to the guillotine.

> I would say that many if not most changes are made by people who do not
> understand or agree with the underlying philosophy of Loglan/Lojban.
> But this is neither a condemnation of the changer or the change, just a
> rejection.

I'm not sure you can take it for granted that you fully know or appreciate
what the underlying philosophy of Loglan/Lojban is. What I mean is, if you
take those people who venerate Lojlan to some extent, and are in sympathy
with major aspects of it, and then ask them what its essential features
are, then you may get conflicting answers. Ask, say, jimc and Goran.

It would be fairer to say that these proponents of changes are people who
do not know much about the *history* (rather than the philosophy) of
Lojlan. (I was rather envious of Nick when he told me how Major (now
vanished hence) brought back all the lognets and JLs to Australia from
USA and passed them on to him.)

coo, mie And