Subject: Re: [lojban] META : Who is everyone (and what are they saying)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:45:44 EDT

Like Nick, I tend to think that everybody knows about me, but many have arriv 
after the alst expose, so
John Clifford, known as "pc" or (Lojban) "pycyn" (initials from my name 
1975-93, Parks-Clifford). Associate Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, 
University of Missouri - St. Louis. 
I was hired to teach Formal Logic and Asian. The former eventually expanded 
to everything from Informal to Computation Theory -- and LSAT coaching, the 
latter eventually took in Philosophy of Religion, Religion and Science, 
Medieval, and Occult. Since I have an MA in Linguistics I also taught 
Philosophy of Language and stuff about theory construction in the social 
sciences. I worked in non -standard logics mainly (Tense and Tense Logic, 
many-valued, analytic implication). I took early retirement to get away from 
students and for the pay increase that it involved.
I have been involved with Loglans off an on since 1961, when I tried to get 
some information from Jim Brown to use Loglan in experiements in machinme 
translation at RAND. He never replied and I gave it up, though I later 
learned that two people I was in class with daily were active at the time in 
the work that eventually led to the second and third versions of Loglan (or 
third and fourth -- the count is hard to document). I re-upped in '76 when 
version three (four) appeared and was very active until 1984 (editor of The 
Loglanist, Board Member of TLI, VP 80-82, President 82-4 -- a nominal 
position, as I discovered when I tried to take a presidential action, 
whence). I was inactive from 84 on, joining in a few early Logfests after 
'87 and taking limited part in discussions about the new language when the 
split was solidified (limited because I am a terrible correspondent and did 
not have reliable e-mail). More active for the last few years (reliable 
e-mail [well, aol, but it gets here eventually], more time), to the point 
where Lojban probably occuoies more of my time than any other one thing.
I am, I guess, a hardliner with glorky tendencies, which I suppress 
rhetorically and professionally. I think that Lojban is spelled out much 
more thoroughly than it is generally given credit for (by And, say) and that 
it is the business of users to bring to light these spells and apply them. 
Thus, I tend to automatically reject any claim that we need a new locution to 
say something, since I think there is already a way to say it in Lojban (the 
2500 year history of applying logic has covered more cases than have been 
brought up yet, so I generally think we can manage what comes along). I also 
rather think that I have lost many more of those disputes than I have won, 
but the winners keep having to defend their positions, so I keep sticking the 
right answer in. On the other hand, there are some aspects of langauge which 
Lojban has not done well with (though I think that the mechanisms aaare there 
but unused or inadequately used): references to and into plurals, for 
example. But generally, I take the Refgram and the vocabulary lists as 
basically correct, with at most minor tinkering -- and major clarification -- 
needed.
My interest in Lojban, aside from the fun of working on, at, with it is the 
questions of how much the language of logic needs to be modified to cover the 
range of human verbal communication and whether a language based on Logic 
(and developed under Logic's (= my) scrutiny) would actually lead its 
speakers to be clearer thinkers, better arguers, more reasonable people. 
Part of the reason I left teaching was that students have in recent years 
(since, for some reason, 1985) become proggressively worse at seeing into 
arguments, at getting behind what is said to what is meant and how it 
functions in an argument -- to the point where they will argue 
(ineffectually) that somethign that makes a certain argument work is not 
there at all. Would learning Lojban help these clowns? This is not quite a 
Whorfian effect, more a matter of internalizing a better tool.
Outside of Lojban, I read classic mysteries, preferably set in odd locations 
(the paradigm being the Judge Dees of van Gulick) and/or humorous (Carr). I 
have been known to read fantasy/sf (my college roommate wrote the screens for 
Invasion America and is Harve Bennett's brother) but little after the "golden 
age" except to teenage females (daughter and nieces), for whom I am now 
renewing my acquaintance with Pern. I take the classes in the Episcopal 
School for Ministry, though I do not intend to become a Deacon (I am not -- 
surprise! -- a people person).
I do string work: knotting, braiding, tatting, crochet, knitting and weaving. 
I swim, lift weights, do Tai Chi Chih -- even Chuan occasionally (a very 
short form)[no Yoga -- I popped my back on the gayatri once and decided never 
again]. And cook (but that is a necessity, not a hobby -- I just happen to 
like it).
Basic stuff: Married (the third: 1 divorce, 1 death) to Martha K. Baker, a 
writer for all media (ghosting books to book reviews, heavy on personal 
memoirs and prayers). One daughter, a BFA in woodworking (go figure!) with 
photography and jewelry minors, presently a florist in Portland OR. 

ragnarok:
<Then may I call your attention to my first post, when I was having trouble
with my articles? It evolved within one response into an argument about zo'u
that I still don't understand!>

Well, articles are tightly allied with quantifiers and quantifiers only make 
real sense in prenex position, so you almost always get to {zo'u} in one or 
two steps. I think we ought to teach quantifiers and prenex first, but 
articles are soooo natural seeming -- until you unpack what they really mean.

<Probably the most typical PC quote is "Nice to see someone else's spleen for
a change." The someone else was me.
I'm actually wondering if we need a new gismu (WARNING: SARCASM AHEAD):
"besto" - x1 is an asbestos suit (metaphorically) worn by x2 over e-mail x3,
disagreed with by x4 for obvious reason x5>

Nah, that was just incidental pique. More typical is "that is an interesting 
point, but..." See above.

xod:
<You're right! I was confusing it with "grok"!>
Welcome to the club. Personally, I suspect a connection, albeit possibly 
uncoonscious. The meanings are too close.

rab spir 
<I don't think the math part was the problem in particular - just the
"arguing with pycyn" part. :P>

In general? Well, I do try to do the best I can with whatever position I get 
dealt, so, if you aren't good at arguing -- or are more involved in 
egotripping than working out a sensible positiona and defending it -- then it 
can be a rough experience. After all, I have been working with this process 
professionally since 1957, which gives me a leg up (and a lot of background 
in dirty tricks if all else fails).