Re: LUNATIC again

Logical Language Group wrote:

> Fine, but English language as used by most people supports binary thinking
> and not fuzzy thinking.  Either something is a duck or it is not.  This
> type of thinking has crossed into all avenues of life (especially politics).
> If you want English terms to be understood fuzzily, you have to be very
> wordy and careful.
Actually, this has little to do with English. Read up
on metaphysics dating from the scholatic philosophers,
and you will see that it is a pan-Western idea, which
forms the underpinnings of logic and ... your "code".

> What a critical mass of speakers proves is that the language has a chance of
> continuing beyond the inventor.
> But you can look at "E-Prime", that variety of English that eschews the
> semantics of identity.  Is it a separate language from English?  I would say
> that it is only a code,
The key to the non-speakability of your code
is that every verb is a separate idiom,
exactly like unix utility commands,
taking different positional parameters.
True langs have some concept of cases
or some other way to regularize parameters.

Lojban is simply a bad imitation of English.
If you want to see a much better conlang which
achieves your putative aim of disambiguation,
try Classical Yiklamu, which is at least
based on some scientific research (WordNet).