From - Wed Feb 28 14:00:58 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id OAA04805 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 14:02:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199602281902.OAA04805@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 5E4A1540 ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:28:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:27:29 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: fuzzy: use of , use of , need for To: sbelknap@UIC.EDU Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 967 >The lack of a corresponding fuzzy property/extent abstractor is culturally >biased, and thus most unlojbanic. The language ought to be neutral as to >fuzzy/discrete, so there should either be a modifier cmavo that turns >fuzzy, a matching cmavo that is a replacement for , or should be >defined in a neutral way, with some other mechanism to specify >fuzzy/discrete Before you can claim a cultural bias, you must provide a culture that actually has such an abstractor. Fuzzy logic is an artifact that as far as I know is more recent than any natural language culture in origin and definition. You have pointed out that there are words in language that can be interpreted best using fuzzy logic concepts, but I doubt if there is any culture that makes a clear linguistic distinction of the sort you seek. Lojban is not trying to be neutral among all imaginable cultures, just the ones that we actually know about %^). lojbab