home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!crux!roger
- From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
- Subject: Re: quite unique
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.053009.1854@Princeton.EDU>
- Originator: news@nimaster
- Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: crux.princeton.edu
- Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
- Organization: Princeton University
- References: <1992Nov13.212917.6537@news.columbia.edu> <TSOS.179.722160418@uni-duesseldorf.de> <1992Nov20.090118.12334@waikato.ac.nz>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:30:09 GMT
- Lines: 45
-
- In article <1992Nov20.090118.12334@waikato.ac.nz> maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
- >In article <TSOS.179.722160418@uni-duesseldorf.de>, TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
- >> In article <1992Nov15.001709.14852@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
-
- >> [...]
- >>>Moreover, a thing can be "quite unique" wrt *one* basis for comparison,
- >>>by not even coming close to anything else. After all, most of the comparisons
- >>>we do are not simply same/different; they take into account degrees of
- >>>difference.
- >> [...]
-
- >> The times of the clear "unique"/"not unique" distinction are over.
- >> If there is fuzzy logic in every washing machine you can buy, why
- >> shouldn't it be in the language as well? English couldn't survive
- >> on the world market if it ignored the modern concepts.
-
- >> And speakers will always (have to) adapt to their language. So it's
- >> time for everyone to get fuzzy. Or should I say "quite fuzzy"?
-
- >Both languages and washing machines would be far better without
- >fuzzy logic.
-
- Only if the users of language and washing machines were robots would
- this be practical.
-
- >It's the wrong way to handle uncertainty about real events.
-
- What's the right way? We can't always ask for clarification; we
- usually wind up guessing (albeit in an educated manner) about some aspect
- of what even the clearest, most "careful" writer has said. All of us
- have slightly differing concepts attached to words; my notion of "Red"
- or "romantic" is not yours, and only a long series of transactions
- betweeen us would achieve real clarity and the lack of ambiguity.
- And life is too short.
-
- >Because it's purely formal and without any clear semantics
- >I think it's probably the wrong way to handle conceptual vagueness
- >as well.
-
- Well, what do you recommend? (I think our friend's use of the term
- was metaphorical; he may have been alluding to the sum of our
- processes of guessing and estimation.)
-
- Roger
-
-