From - Tue Mar 05 09:48:03 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 XAA19336 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 23:14:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199603050414.XAA19336@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 FFB1504F ; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 22:32:56 -0500
Date:         Mon, 4 Mar 1996 22:32:20 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      TECH: fuzzy
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length:  1007


>Lojbab:
>> There is a predicate equivalent to negation/affirmation: jetnu/jitfa
>> so you can use a predicate with jetnu to get the equivalent of ja'a
>> with a subscript.  There are all manner of other areas, some
>> unexplored, where predicates can pop into unusual grammatical locations.
>
>True, and quantifiers and connectives can be replaced by predicates too.
>But with much upheaval. If you use {jitfa} instead of {na} then you're
>going to have to use prenexes: {ro da zou kuau da broda kiai jitfa}
>= {ro da na ku broda}.

You only need prenexes when you are using prenexed variables like "da".
I think most aplications of fuzziness are for more concrete sentences:

mi na klama
le du'u mi klama cu jitfa/fuzzybroda li fuzzyvalue
vs.
mi ja'a xi fuzzyvalue cu klama
vs.
mi sei li fuzzyvalue cu fuzzybroda cu klama
(the latter being an example of apllying fuzz to "mi" rather than to the
truth value), which cannot be accomplished easily without free modifiers.

lojbab