Message-Id: <199602121617.LAA28676@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 14:04:06 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: fuzzy logic proposals (NEW CMAVO)
To:         ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1121

>I don't see why it is necessary to go back to origins, to consult the
>originators. Unless "underlying philosophy" means "original philosophy".

OK, I'll accept the rewording.

>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.

All of the abover were and still are part of the underlying philsophy of
the language.  Just because we do not talk about it does not mean that it
is not there - just that there isn't much to say in the current context.
A linguistically significant SWH test cannot yet be designed, and is at
minimujm a PhD thesis project if not several, in scope.

But we are not chartered to fiddle with the goals of the language, but to
 fulfill them.  Ideally with the shortest straight line path, but it seems that
 is
not as easy as it sounded.

lojbab