[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jboske] more true (was: RE: Re: ka ka (was: Context Leapers)



In a message dated 10/6/2002 3:39:19 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
>   le du'u le xirma cu bajra cu mutce le ka ce'u jetnu
>   That the horse is running is much in truth.
> >>
> Whoa (I like this figure, obviously)!  The example is not a function but
> a comment.  The function is {mutce bajra} (probably {mutce le ka bajra})
> which has a systematically modified version of the truth curve for {bajra}
> but is a new predicate. 

But that seems to be a function of the runner rather than about the running,
or of the running focused on the runner. I think it has to be {le du'u bajra cu
mutce} or {le nu bajra cu mutce}, not {le bajra cu mutce}. Supposedly the
function will change a broda into another predicate with the same argument
places as broda, so it is not obvious how to do it with a selbri.

>>
Strictly, it is a function that creates a new predicate whose truth curve is systematically related to the truth curve for the base predicate.  As a truth curve is about a proposition a a whole, not some part of it, so not about the selbri nor the sumti but how true it is that this sumti fits this selbri.  I am not sure what you mean by a function *about* the runner or the running, these are about the whole proposition.  Now, it may be that {ni} is more about the running -- but it is the least clear of the factors here (to me anyhow -- and no one has come foreward to offer clarification, under that name at least).  But in any case, I don't see your point since it seems to be aimed at something ({le bajra cu mutce}) which no one has proposed as an example of anything. (I suppose {ko'a mutce le ka bajra} can be worked back to this eventually, though not, I think, as an equivalence -- which means that the suggested explanation for {bajra mutce} is wrong, either completely or partially). 

<<
What would you say is the relationship between {piso'iva'e} and {mutce}, if
any? Does {so'iva'e} make any sense?
>>
Not that I know of yet.  "a scalar many" doesn't mean much to me -- especially if I don't have a scale or a clue what it is a scale for. In any case, it seems to be doing something different from {mutce}, whose role is fairly clear to me: it gives a new truth curve.  {so'iva'e} looks at best like a value on a scale, not the correlation of a scale to something else nor the characteristic of the scale.  Thus, if anything, it looks more like a comment ("by the way, this sentence is fairly high up the range of truth values" or some such) than a function, though it might be a quantity of an event.