Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sOkVg-0000YjC; Thu, 22 Jun 95 14:33 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 2AA65C4C ; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:33:04 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 07:32:46 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: red joi blue X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1665 Lines: 36 >> Yes, but that was not my point. Suppose I point to a red thing and >> say {ta blanu}. Now, I'm conceptualizing that red thing as part of a >> mass that contains also some blue things. Since I'm pointing at part >> of the mass, I'm pointing at the mass, and since part of the >> mass is blue, then the mass is blue. Which would mean that I'm >> perfectly right in saying {ta blanu} when I point to a red thing. >> I don't think that's how masses should work. > >You point to a mass, ta, which is partly red and partly blue, and say >{ta blanu}. That seems fairly reasonable to me. If the referent of >{ta} is not the mass but only the red thing, then {ta blanu} is false. ta blanu joi xunre would be correct if the mass is both colors. ta blanu would likely not be (though if this is a red spot on a mostly blue object, ta blanu would work. I think we may be getting into fuzzy logic values here. loi cinfo cu xabju la friko seems quite true loi cinfo cu xabju la merko seems technically true loi cinfo cu xabju la friko ku joi la merko seems "more" true than either of the others. Maybe the answer needs to be that the truth value that {And's sock, J.C. and me} cu rorci, is an infinitismally small non-zero fuzzy value. But I think we consider truth values that small to be equivalent to "false". Before we leave Jorge's example, though, I want to note that the clear way to convey that one is conceiving of the red thing as part of a mass which blanu is "la'e ta cu blanu". I hesitate to open up la'e and lu'e to discussion, but they are among the only sumti operators that haven't been embroiled in this mess. Why spare them? %^) lojbab