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).