Message-Id: <199511182237.RAA08577@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sat, 18 Nov 1995 21:51:56 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      scalar polarity
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

> > 2. There are two distinct kinds of gradience in truth values. The
> > first concerns the fuzzy boundary between true and false: we take
> > T & F to be points 0 & 1 with nomansland between them. The second
> > concerns degrees of truth and of falsity: how much would the world
> > have to change for some state-of-affairs to become the case (if it
> > is false) and to cease to be the case (if it is true). If you
> > expressed this in numbers, then you'd use the full scale (of (I
> > think) real numbers), with negative numbers for falsity and positive
> > for truth.
> You talked about this before, but I think I'm starting to finally
> understand it only now. I would also add that those two gradients are
> distinct from the scale provided by {to'e}. A negative value in the
> -inf to +inf scale does not imply a positive value in the {to'e broda}
> direction. In other words, "almost beautiful" does not mean "slightly
> ugly".

I agree: the interpretation of {toe}+{selbri} really depends on the selbri
- the result is only partially predictable.

> > I think I once suggested that {jei} denote the former type and {ni}
> > the latter (though I'd prefer to use selbri+duu).
> Here I'm lost. How do abstractions enter into it? The idea of the scales
> is a nice way to picture it, but I hope you are not suggesting that we
> use actual numbers for it!

I was opaquely trying to say what you yourself have said: that
lujvo meaning is-truth-value-of are better than {jei} and {ni}.

> > 3. To what extent, I wonder, do we have ways of expressing these
> > varieties of truth gradience?
> > We seem not to have anything intermediate between {na} and {jaa}.
> > I think that's the sort of thing Steve has been saying we should have.
> > As for the gradable T & F, Jorge has proposed additions to NAHE:
> I like your proposals, so I withdraw mine.

Wow! How flattering! (zoonai)

> >   jaacai   very true
> >   jaa(sai) (fairly) true
> >   jaarue   slightly true (true, but only just) - BARELY
> >   narue    slightly false (false, but only just) - ALMOST
> >   na(sai)  (fairly) false
> >   nacai    very false
> > - these I think are quite good.
> I agree. I would like to see {naru'e} in the dictionary entry for
> "almost".

Good.

> > For indeterminate, fuzzy:
> >   nanaicai        near 1.0
> >   nanai(sai)
> >   nanairue
> >   jaacui = nacui  0.5
> >   jaanairue
> >   jaanai(sai)
> >   jaanaicai       near 0
> > - these are less satisfactory, but they're a start.
> I prefer:
> je'ucai
> je'u(sai)
> je'uru'e
> je'ucu'i
> je'unairu'e
> je'unai(sai)
> je'unaicai
> I find nanai and ja'anai somewhat confusing.

It's better to have the same cmavo at the start of each, I guess,
but why {jeu}? Isn't {jeu} in UI? What's needed is rather something
in NA, no? Could {jeu} be moved into NA? If not, {naa} is unassigned
in my maoste.

> > I'm less sure about the following NAhE forms. If we used them
> > then it would be nice to have rafsi for {cai} and {rue}.
> >   jeacai  to a large positive extent
> >   jea     to a positive extent (unspecified or ungradable)
> >   jearue  to a small positive extent
> >   naerue  to a small negative extent
> >   nae     to a negative extent (unspecified or ungradable)
> >   naecai  to a large positive extent
> > What do rodo reckon?
> I like them. The difference between {naru'e} and {na'eru'e} is of course
> the same as that between {na} and {na'e}. The first one would say that
> there is almost a relationship between the arguments, while the other
> claims that there definitely is a relationship, which is almost but not
> quite the one corresponding to the selbri in question.

Good. So we ask for NA CAI and NAhE CAI, and something in NA that means
"sort of; intermediate between complete truth and complete falsity"?

---
And