From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jan 30 17:35:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 31 Jan 2002 01:35:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 5638 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2002 01:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2002 01:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2002 01:35:28 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.15c.7a52ed8 (3981) for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:35:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <15c.7a52ed8.2989f951@aol.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:35:13 EST Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation stylequestion) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15c.7a52ed8.2989f951_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13117 --part1_15c.7a52ed8.2989f951_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/30/2002 6:30:25 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > I can see what the distinction might be, but I wonder if there is one > in practice. Is there any sentence 'broda' such that it would be > reasonable for someone to say '.i la'a broda .i ku'i ju'onaicai broda' > > Anything like 'ju'ocu'i' instead of 'cumki' is assuming that 'cumki' > really does indicate only a middle value on a scale of > certainty/probability. A different meaning of 'cumki' doesn't limit > the degree of certainty/probability. If something is certain, it's > also possible. > {cumki} is about possibility, not probability -- an absolute, not a scalar, for one thing. Also a logical not an empirical notion, except conditionally. Probability is also usually subjective, possibility is only in conditional cases (where the conditions are not spelled out very well). In probability terms, possibility excludes only 0 from the range, so it is neither the weak end or the middle, though rhetorically it tends to be used for the lower side of things (in English with a certain inflection). Certainty is subjective and comparable but not scalar and not empirical. It is, in fact, totally separate (except in idealized observers) either probability or possibility, as most theists and atheists recognize. To the extent that certainty and probability coincide, probability looses its empirical base or certainty becomes less subjective (that is, we misues one concept or the other). I regret I can't come up with a good case of an impossible thing of which someone is certain, but since most things are possible it really is rather hard to do. God does nicely for highly improbable things of which someone is certain, however. Since {la'a} is probably used like "probably" to indicate at least better than .5, someone who held that subjective assessment would almost certainly not have a *strong* doubt about it, but he might well have a doubt about it. --part1_15c.7a52ed8.2989f951_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/30/2002 6:30:25 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:


I can see what the distinction might be, but I wonder if there is one
in practice. Is there any sentence 'broda' such that it would be
reasonable for someone to say '.i la'a broda .i ku'i ju'onaicai broda'

Anything like 'ju'ocu'i' instead of 'cumki' is assuming that 'cumki'
really does indicate only a middle value on a scale of
certainty/probability. A different meaning of 'cumki' doesn't limit
the degree of certainty/probability. If something is certain, it's
also possible.


{cumki} is about possibility, not probability -- an absolute, not a scalar, for one thing.  Also a logical not an empirical notion, except conditionally.  Probability is also usually subjective, possibility is only in conditional cases (where the conditions are not spelled out very well). In probability terms, possibility excludes only 0 from the range, so it is neither the weak end or the middle, though rhetorically it tends to be used for the lower side of things (in English with a certain inflection).  Certainty is subjective and comparable but not scalar and not empirical.  It is, in fact, totally separate (except in idealized observers) either probability or possibility, as most theists and atheists recognize.  To the extent that certainty and probability coincide, probability looses its empirical base or certainty becomes less subjective (that is, we misues one concept or the other).  I regret I can't come up with a good case of an impossible thing of which someone is certain, but since most things are possible it really is rather hard to do. God does nicely for highly improbable things of which someone is certain, however.
Since {la'a} is probably used like "probably" to indicate at least better than .5, someone who held that subjective assessment would almost certainly not have a *strong* doubt about it, but he might well have a doubt about it. --part1_15c.7a52ed8.2989f951_boundary--