Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tARMs-0000ZRC; Wed, 1 Nov 95 02:49 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id BD1D9689 ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 1:49:26 +0100 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 18:24:31 -0600 Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" Sender: Lojban list From: "Steven M. Belknap" Subject: fuzzy touching To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1418 Lines: 49 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 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