Re: lojban imperfections

["John E. Clifford" <Pycyn@AOL.COM>]

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