Message-Id: <199603070014.TAA22263@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:31:32 +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:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1085

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".

"Three of the people each sort of went"
= {ci le prenu jaa xi something ku klama}

"Three of the people each did not go"
= {ci le prenu na ku klama}

Try doing that with {jitfa}. Not easy.

> 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.

coo, mie And