Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id QAA05949 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:49:09 -0500
Message-Id: <199602272149.QAA05949@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 907E15B0 ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:06:33 -0500
Date:         Tue, 27 Feb 1996 15:07:36 -0600
Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      fuzzy: use of <ni>, use of <jei>, need for <xoi>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 2834
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 28 13:57:26 1996
X-From-Space-Address: -

Some additional fuzzy thoughts.

<2/5 ni levi rozgu kei be lo kamkuspe melbi>

"2 of 5 is the amount of this-here rose on the fuzzy beauty scale."

The abstraction document implies that such an explicitly arithmetic use of
ni is restricted only to mathematical expressions, and thus requires the
math cmavo <mo'e>, but I can't understand why this restriction is required.
Perhaps it is a request rather than a command. There is also the issue of
multiple fuzzy beauty scales, which has been discussed to exhaustion. (The
situation is analagous to someone saying "It's 22 degrees in Peoria"
without specifying whether the scale is Celsius, Farenheit, or Kelvin.
Perhaps a more exact statement would refer to the scale of the American
Rose Society, or some other scale.)

Note the difference in the meaning of the above compared to:

<2/5 jei levi rozgu ko melbi kei kamkuspe>

"2 of 5 is the truth value of the statement, 'this-here rose is beautiful'
in a fuzzy epistemology"

or

"Fuzzily speaking, 'this-here rose is beautiful' is true to extent 2 on a 0
to 5 scale'

I am still convinced lojban ought to have a separate fuzzy cmavo, perhaps
with an X2 place for scale. The jei xi subscripting convention is talking
about truth values. The <ni> (if not actually ungrammatic) still requires
explicit specification to distinguish fuzzy <kamkuspe> from discrete
<kamkantu>. Something else is needed to explicitly talk about fuzzy extent,
as the default meaning of <ka> seems to be discrete. Consider

<levi rozgu 2/5 xoi melbi>

or, more precisely:

<levi rozgu 2/5 xoi melbi kei be la stivn>

"This-here rose has 2 of 5 fuzzy beauty on the scale of Steven."

<levi rozgu 2/5 ka melbi kei be la goran>

"This-here rose has *exactly* 2 of 5 beauty on the scale of Goran."

My use of <be> in this last expression is probably either ungrammatic or
superfluous, but perhaps you will see my point: the choice of a discrete
property abstractor is arbitrary. <ka> seems like a discrete property
abstractor.

The lack of a corresponding fuzzy property/extent abstractor is culturally
biased, and thus most unlojbanic. The language ought to be neutral as to
fuzzy/discrete, so there should either be a modifier cmavo that turns <ka>
fuzzy, a matching cmavo that is a replacement for <ka>, or <ka> should be
defined in a neutral way, with some other mechanism to specify
fuzzy/discrete:

<levi rozgu 2/5 ka melbi kei be kamkuspe>

Could <ka> serve as both a fuzzy and a discrete property abstractor?
Perhaps what is wanted is a blend of <ni> and <ka>. Would it be a bad idea
to use <nika> for &'s <xoi>?

Comments?

cohomihe la kamkuspe 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