Re: TECH: fuzzy logic proposals (NEW CMAVO)

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

> >D. I'd like to know how to say "jea xi very" and "jea xi slightly".
> Use the fuzzy numbers piso'u piso'o etc.

very = {jea xi pi soe}, slightly = {jea xi pi sou}?

> >> 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.
> I'm not sure how onw would substantiate it.  Even Steven said that there
> were ways to express fuzzy stuff in 15 syllables. I am as yet unconvinced
> that there is need for anyuthing shorter.

One can substantiate it by providing examples of how to do it. I'm fairly
sure that fuzzy NA can be done by existing methods, but I can't see an
existing way of doing fuzzy NAE.

> The main arguments seem to be whether we need short forms to make the
> distinctions. And it is harder to justify new grammar or new cmavo
> merely to shorten a little used are aof the language.

It's hard to tell whether there's a call for something until it's
available.

> >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.
> True, but for underlying philosophy, one must go back to origins.  JCB is
> trhe authority on what his intent was.
> I do know the underlying philsophy of Lojban; i.e. that version of Loglan
> thatwe are implementing, since I think I can claim to have largely defined
> it.

I don't see why it is necessary to go back to origins, to consult the
originators. Unless "underlying philosophy" means "original philosophy".
The philosophy can evolve over time. For example, if "investigation of
whorfian effects" was ever more than a publicity gimmick, it no longer
has any place in the philosophy of lojlan as I perceive it (as opposed
to the goals of certain lojlanists). Same goes for cultural (as opposed
to ethnic) neutrality. I suppose we shd recognize that there are
several alternative philosophies of lojlan.

> >Ask, say, jimc and Goran
> jimc's version of what Loglan is was explicitly rejected by JCB and by
> pc who was at one time designated by JCB as his intellectual heir as
> leader of the Loglan project.

But JCB and pc may have been wrong; one would have to review the reasons
in order to decide whose case was better.

> >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.
> Since the philsophy was written down in the historical writings on the
> language, this seems to be tautologous.

The philosophy is also set down in readily available introductory and
expository material, and is also implicit in the design of the language
itself.

coo, mie and