Message-Id: <199511010029.TAA10767@mail1.access.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 31 Oct 1995 18:24:31 -0600
Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      fuzzy touching
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Status: RO

xorxes cusku di'e

>How do we say these in Lojban:
>
>        I touched it.
>        I barely touched it.
>        I almost touched it.
>
>The first is {mi pu pencu ta}, but what about the others?
>"Barely" means that I touched it, but was very close not to.
>"Almost" means that I didn't touch it, but was very close to do it.

The following is sort of O.K.

je'uru'e mi pu pencu ta

It is a little bit true that I touched that.

but I find the construction a little contrived, as there are two levels of
reference for what seems like a simple concept. I believe these are
endpoint instances of fuzziness. What would be nice would be something
like:

mi pu <fuzzily 1 on a 0 to 6 scale> pencu ta

where the granularity of the fuzzy scale could be optionally speaker specified.

I think something like this is necessary, because English speakers often use
these sort of constructs. (Its good a good beat and you can dance to it,
I'd give it a 7 on a ten point scale) Sometimes different predicates are
used to distinguish degrees of fuzziness in English:

I nailed it
I got it
I tapped it

I realize that it is possible to construct such statements in lojban, but a
more compact notation seems reasonable.

la stivn


Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413