From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:58:53 2010 Reply-To: Pycyn@AOL.COM Sender: Lojban list Date: Tue Dec 17 10:14:07 1996 From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: Re: lojban imperfections X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: c6ba8cb590265317d898149fd413a366 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1816 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 17 10:14:07 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: kris Oops! Sorry to be a pedant in public (as I am in private) but you mean -- in strict terms -- that the gismu (and everything else) are *vague,* that the concepts do not have sharp borders. Perfectly true and totally inevitable, every word in every language is vague at some level as soon as it is used. And that vagueness is most of the time what allows us to use words at all. We could never learn enough totally precise words (were such possible) to get through a day (probably a sentence) and we could never get them socialized to be a part of language, since each user would put in a bit and leave out a bit in learning the word. When the vagueness gets to be a problem, we specify what we mean (get rid of the vagueness to the level needed practically) somehow or other and go on. Sometimes one of those specification (a particularly snappy one, say) gets established as a standard, at least in some jargon, and so continues as a less vague word, but it too will crash (or may, given enough investigation). Even science talk -- even MATH talk -- has this problem (consider the questions -- some still current -- about whether certain kinds of mathematical entities are numbers). So if you are unsure about the book being a terdudna, do just what you would do if unsure about whether it was given you -- if it matters at all -- decide and define (stipulatively) or subdivide or whatever works for you (but do use a new word for it in Lojban: say, "things that have come into my posssession from others without cost" if the book is in, "things given to me formally" if not). But notice (back to ambiguity) that dudna does not have the other meanings that give has (surrending, producing, ...) and so is not ambiguous (relevantly: the notion of "a different meaning" is, of course, vague, too). >|83