From pycyn@aol.com Wed Mar 14 13:18:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 21:18:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 7284 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 21:18:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 21:18:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.65) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 22:19:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.fd.3a7311c (4236) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:18:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:18:01 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Train catching ut nunc To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fd.3a7311c.27e13a09_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5848 --part1_fd.3a7311c.27e13a09_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/14/2001 11:17:33 AM Central Standard Time,=20 rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes: > > lost truth functionally.=20=20 >=20 > You're assuming non-fuzzy logic. 8)> No, the basic rule is that UI and its kin have NO assertive force, bivalent= ,=20 trivalent, fuzzivalent or whatever. Since CAI is not UI, I suppose we have= =20 some wiggle room, and we did wiggle once in the case of trivalent logics. = =20 But that was, I think, pretty clearly just an ad hoc experiment, not an=20 actual suggestion for lb usage.=20=20 Come to think of it, I don't remember how the Peoria fuzzyist does do fuzzy= =20 logics (are you listening?). ivan: <, to my mind it will be exactly the same thing as if those meanings are assigned to cmavo chosen at random.> Not quite chosen at random, since there clearly is a relation here -- we=20 wouldn't pick {ba'o}, for example. But I agree that pushing Gricean factor= s=20 is probably not a good ground for setting up an idiom in a language where w= e=20 don't have any very good notion of what people will expect (how a cooperati= ve=20 interlocutor acts).=20=20 ivan (xoxes) <> We really need a lujvo that means something like: >=20 >=A0 =A0 x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is/does x2. Seconded.> {koigre}: "gets over the border, edge, of" It could, of course, mean other= =20 things, but this got there first. {snada koigre} for "just made it" =3D {fliba jibni} "almost missed it" and= so=20 on. Would {jibni snada} be "just barely caught it" and {snada jibni= } > "almost caught it"? That would be fun. Yes, in fact that can work, I think, thanks to the flexibility of tanru. All it takes is interpreting {jibni snada} as `succeed narrowly' and {snada jibni} as `approach success'.> Cute, but I ain't giving one of MY seegars. xorxes (xod? Robin-the-Canuck?) <> pu ki mi pu'o je banai snada tu'a le trene > >I believe you meant pu ki mi pu'o jenai ba snada tu'a le trene since it >doesn't parse otherwise. It should parse both ways, I think. Parser bug? The meanings also are the same as far as I can tell.> Always a pain. In spite of having done boogobs of the work on Lojban=20 negation, I can never remember how it all works out in the text. Surely,=20 {jenai ba P} negates {ba P}, but is the negation inside or outside the {ba= }.=20 I assume outside, since it is {na} in some sense. But the {nai} in {banai= }=20 should just negate (ba} and mean "at some other time," even though it is n= ot=20 {na'e} exactly. At best, it may be a {na} inside the {ba} and so only say= =20 that at some future time I don't do it but, maybe at the interesting time I= =20 do. Or this may be all overfussiness. I think the original proposal (the missing 4) was with {ca'a}, which is=20 clearer (and the two placements of {na'i} are less problematically=20 equivalent). I think I still prefer the predicative solution as a general= =20 piece, however.=20 --part1_fd.3a7311c.27e13a09_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/14/2001 11:17:33 AM Central Standard Time,=20
rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes:

<there is the problem = that the "near miss" or "near hit" part is=20
> lost truth functionally.

You're assuming non-fuzzy logic. 8)>

No, the basic rule is that UI and its kin have NO assertive force, biva= lent,=20
trivalent, fuzzivalent or whatever. Since CAI is not UI, I suppos= e we have=20
some wiggle room, and we did wiggle once in the case of trivalent logic= s.
But that was, I think, pretty clearly just an ad hoc experiment, not an= =20
actual suggestion for lb usage.
Come to think of it, I don't remember how the Peoria fuzzyist does do f= uzzy=20
logics (are you listening?).

ivan:
<, to my mind it will be
exactly the same thing as if those meanings are assigned to cmavo
chosen at random.>
Not quite chosen at random, since there clearly is a relation here -- w= e=20
wouldn't pick {ba'o}, for example. But I agree that pushing Grice= an factors=20
is probably not a good ground for setting up an idiom in a language whe= re we=20
don't have any very good notion of what people will expect (how a coope= rative=20
interlocutor acts).

ivan (xoxes)
<> We really need a lujvo that means something like:
>=20
>=A0 =A0 x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is/does x2.

Seconded.>
{koigre}: "gets over the border, edge, of" It could, of course, m= ean other=20
things, but this got there first.
{snada koigre} for "just made it" =3D {fliba jibni} "almost missed it" = and so=20
on.

<Jorge Llambias wrote:
> Would {jibni snada} be "just barely caught it" a= nd {snada jibni}
> "almost caught it"? That would be fun.

Yes, in fact that can work, I think, thanks to the flexibility
of tanru. All it takes is interpreting {jibni snada} as
`succeed narrowly' and {snada jibni} as `approach success'.>
Cute, but I ain't giving one of MY seegars.

xorxes (xod? Robin-the-Canuck?)
<> pu ki mi pu'o je banai snada tu'a le trene
>
>I believe you meant pu ki mi pu'o jenai ba snada tu'a le trene sinc= e it
>doesn't parse otherwise.

It should parse both ways, I think. Parser bug?

The meanings also are the same as far as I can tell.>

Always a pain. In spite of having done boogobs of the work on Loj= ban=20
negation, I can never remember how it all works out in the text. = Surely,=20
{jenai ba P} negates {ba P}, but is the negation inside or outsid= e the {ba}.=20
I assume outside, since it is {na} in some sense. But the {= nai} in {banai}=20
should just negate (ba} and mean "at some other time," even thoug= h it is not=20
{na'e} exactly. At best, it may be a {na} inside the {ba} and so = only say=20
that at some future time I don't do it but, maybe at the interesting ti= me I=20
do. Or this may be all overfussiness.
I think the original proposal (the missing 4) was with {ca'a}, which is= =20
clearer (and the two placements of {na'i} are less problematically=20
equivalent). I think I still prefer the predicative solution as a= general=20
piece, however.=20

--part1_fd.3a7311c.27e13a09_boundary--