From - Tue Feb 20 15:05:35 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 HAA13440 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 07:04:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199602181204.HAA13440@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 F9580E9D ; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 6:29:52 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 11:28:04 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Organization: Committee for the Perversion of Lojbania Subject: Re: Cowan denounces "je'a xi " X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1021 lao aaaaaaaaaaa John aaaaaaaaaaa die cusku > Let me make it clear here and now that: > 1) My proposal of "je'a xi " as a way of managing fuzziness > was a typographical error; > 2) What I meant to propose was "ja'a xi ", which is not > scalar but represents "degree of truth" > 3) That I do not and will not propose assigning meaning (fuzzy or > otherwise) to "je'a xi " (it's already grammatical). (3) doesn't make sense. It's grammatical, but you won't assign it meaning? Why do you want it to be grammatical and meaningless? It seems fairly pointless to have {jaa xi} without {jea xi}. They're two versions of the same kind of thing, and if one can be fuzzy then so can the other. The kind that Steven is most interested in - "ish"- like meanings (as in "this is greenish") - is {jea xi}. Still, since logic seems to get by with only NA-type negation, it seems reasonable for us to try to manage with only {jaa xi}, and see how it goes. coo mie and