From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Oct 14 02:34:37 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1993 10:10:57 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1993 10:10:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199310141410.AA04908@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8818; Thu, 14 Oct 93 10:08:53 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5809; Thu, 14 Oct 93 06:37:53 EDT Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 06:34:37 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu To: protin@usl.com Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-Status: Ooops. Sorry aboutnot sending it to Lojban list and thanx for reposting. I do want to note that your counter argument, if it is invoking speaker relativism, must have some way to specify this, and there is no observer place in JCB's color words (or most others - but some have it). If a langauge is intended that all claims be limited to speaker's perceptions, this is fine, but that is NOT the way language is used. A scientist who KNOWS that white has more blue content than brown does, or who is reporting on a scientific result, is going to confuse the hell out of people who think he is colorblind. WE chose to take all of the relativistic places out of the color words in particular (and let people add them through BAI), because this let us NOT have to choose a particular analysis or model of perception. But we needed the mechanisms to express that extra info, and JCB did not provide it in his version of Loglan. lojbab