Message-Id: <199602062022.WAA11186@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:42:40 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      existing ways to fuzz?
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1255
Lines: 193

Lojbab to Steven:
> You contend that the language needs more tools for fuzziness, whereas I
> and I think pc believe that there are plenty of structures in the
> language to support fuzziness far more effectively than any natlang
> does.  My objection is that the slang usages are being intentionally
> developed before people have tried to make do with the langauge as
> designed.

Well the onus is on you or whoever agrees with you to show how
existing resources in the language can do the required job. I am
certainly not aware of existing methods, and I note that John
proposed an innovation to handle fuzziness.

> Just as people are prone to borrow rather than lujvo-make, or to assume
> that there is no gismu for a concept when there is (but it isn't
> reflected in the keyword), I think that grammar and slang proposals
> are being introduced by people who do NOT have sufficient command of
> the language to know what can be done with the tools at hand.

Can you give any examples at all of these grammar and slang proposals
that are supposedly being introduced by people who do NOT have sufficient
command of the language to know what can be done with the tools at hand?

I can't think of any, so I conclude that you are deluded.

coo, mie And