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 SAA26104 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 18:04:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199603072304.SAA26104@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 64522980 ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:20:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:37:15 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list X-UIDL: 826240965.000 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: fuzzy X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1729 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Mar 08 10:11:21 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - >"Three of the people each sort of went" >= {ci le prenu jaa xi something ku klama} Since this is not a use of "na", I would have no idea what it means in terms of jitfa. To say that the statement os false, I need only negate the mex value "something" - I think. >"Three of the people each did not go" >= {ci le prenu na ku klama} Not sure why you put the "naku" there, but that made it not normal predicate negation, and I don;t have the negation paper handy to remind me whether naku means the same as na when it is in that position. "naku" has scope issues that arepositionally dependent, and hence is not identical to "na". I think, based on your English, that I would go something like ro lo ci le prenu naku klama pa lo ci le prenu na klama ^su'o and decide that your naku is invalid to start with %^) I would state your English using jitfa as ledu'u ro lo ci le prenu cu klama cu jitfa It is false that each of the three of the people goes. >> 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. > >I wouldn't have a clue how to interpret that lojban sentence. Well, since we are missing conventions and place structure for fuzzybroda, I can understand that this would be weak in meaning %^). MY intent, if I grasp the terminology, would be to interpret this as saying that "mi" is fuzzily a member of the set of lo'i klama with fuzzy value of fuzzyvalue (with a possible number of other defining parameters omitted, such as the scale on which fuzzyvalue is defined - these would be the unstated conventionally defined places of fuzzybroda) Does that help? lojbab