Message-Id: <199603082227.RAA29419@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 8 Mar 1996 20:37:40 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: fuzzy
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Content-Length: 2607

> >"Three of the people each did not go"
> >= {ci le prenu na ku klama}
> Not sure why you put the "naku" there,

because with {na ku} before {ci}, or without the {ku}, it means "It is
not the case that three of the people went".

> 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 are
> positionally dependent, and hence is not identical to "na".

{na} without {ku} is like putting {na ku} right at the start of the
bridi.

> I think, based on your English, that I would go something like
> ro lo ci le prenu naku klama

This means the same as my english & lojban, but the {ro lo} bit is
redundant.

> pa lo ci le prenu na klama
> ^su'o

That means something totally different. "It's not the case that there
is a threesome, x, such that each member of the threesome is one of the
people, and such that at least one member of x went".

> and decide that your naku is invalid to start with %^)

I can't see any basis for deciding that.

> 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.

My english and lojban does not say this. It says that for each of three
of the people, it is false that that person goes.
My version says at least 3 people stayed at home. Your version says
that less than 3 of the people went. It's easy to do your version
using jitfa, and hard or impossible to do mine without use of prenex.
That was my point.

> >> 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?

I see. An abominable misuse of {sei}. It clearly affects truth conditions.
You may say that discursives are (or can be) merely abbreviations of
longer expressions without discursives, but if that is so then the
result is a mess.

coo; mie and