From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Feb 10 09:45:54 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id JAA08992 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 09:45:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199602101445.JAA08992@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 968B6CBE ; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 9:14:04 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 14:13:15 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: steven on john's fuzz moot X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2909 > As I understand it, is a cmavo of the NAhE selmaho class, thus > it would apply to the bridi, in this case, . Rather, it modifies the selbri. But in some rather murky ways. For example, does {nae broda} mean "non broda; the complement of broda" or "something other than broda"? Does "mi jea xi .5 cilre lo cukta" mean that there is a book that I half read - that I am in a relationship of half-reading with. Or does it mean that I have the property of having half read a book. Another possibly less confusing example: does "mi jea xi .5 se stedu da" mean "there is something with which I am in a relationship of quasiheadedness" or "I half have a head"? > I am seeking a general formalism that will describe the fuzziness of a > grammer structure, such as a selbri, rather than a fuzzy formalism whose > scope is the entire bridi. Are you asking for too much. If there's a fuzzy operator for bridi and selbri, what else do you want? > Supose I use And's experimental fuzzy operator, but with the > *before* the grammer structure it is to modify, that is with > structure: > x1 is on scale/in quality x2 > > "I am fuzzily 0.05 blue." This is very different from {xoi} as I proposed it. > One could make a lujvo using something like + = > mursyblanu and apply the number to that. Since {blanu} is already fuzzy, I don't think this is the solution. > This would be idiomatic and we would have to adopt the convention that > murse used in this way would be a fuzzifier. We could come up with a > new gismu for fuzzy and do the same thing. (I suggested , but > there is resistance to new gismu. I used , but some people > thought this was a malglico. It doesn't seem much worse to me than > , but some people thought was better.) I could use a > fuhivla, I suppose, like You really think "hair" is as apt as "twilight"? Anyway, I see why you wanted {fudji}, or felt {murse} must be idiomatic in lujvo, and the unfeasability of this confirms that a lujvo approach to fuzziness is misguided. > I am still not sure why one couldn't say: > > as I'm not sure what *else* this could be referring to but either > nonsense or a fuzzy sort of blue, but for some reason this didn't > fly either. (Why not?) It is, I think, a sequence of two sumti, {mi} and {pinomu blanu} = ".05 of a default unit of bluestuff". > > "This-here thing I am calling a rose is a 2 out of 5 on the ordinal fuzzy > rose-beauty scale." I think {levi rozgu jea xi re fiu mu rozmelbi} will do, except that, as you've said, something other than {fiu} is needed. Failing that, you could use a lujvo - murse zei ckaji, say - with a place structure to suit your every craving. coo, mie and