From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 27 13:23:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 20:23:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 10175 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 20:23:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 20:23:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m04.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.7) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 20:23:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.15b.14e4b0f8 (17377) for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <15b.14e4b0f8.2ac61857@aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:23:51 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] ka ka (was: Context Leapers) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15b.14e4b0f8.2ac61857_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16129 --part1_15b.14e4b0f8.2ac61857_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/2002 1:50:08 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes: << > This ni-like usage of ka, which of course is completely redundant with > ni, is also seen right in 11.5:5.4. And ni is redundant with jei inasmuch > as I don't see any real distinction in the sentence "The ``blueness of the > picture'' discussed in Section 5 refers to the measurable amount of blue > pigment (or other source of blueness), not to the degree of truth of the > claim that blueness is present." >> Let's see. 1). The {ni}-like {ka} is not redundant given {ni} since the qualitymof anything is different from its quantity: "like the sky" is different from "very intense" (meant quantitatively -- hrd to separate in English). 2) 11.5.4&5 are both about the functions to values, not about the values themselves, presumably "x is so blue" in the two different senses. 3) Whatever is going on there, it is not indexed at {ka} . 4) The truth of a propsition is not the same as its intensity, despite the parody one often sees of fuzzy logics -- e.g., the truth of "Joe is tall" eventually (around 6') reaches pure True, the quantity keeps going (though it also may not, since it is not the same as hw tall Joe is -- or the amount of blue pigment) We don't know very well how to handle these various notions, since English -- and most other familiar languages -- don't use them much. That does not mean they all collapse into something we do sorta know how to use. (It does mean that they were -- on Zipfean grounds given way the wrong words, but that is another matter entirely -- having to do with what someone tought they meant way back when.) --part1_15b.14e4b0f8.2ac61857_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/2002 1:50:08 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes:

<<

This ni-like usage of ka, which of course is completely redundant with
ni, is also seen right in 11.5:5.4. And ni is redundant with jei inasmuch
as I don't see any real distinction in the sentence "The ``blueness of the
picture'' discussed in Section 5 refers to the measurable amount of blue
pigment (or other source of blueness), not to the degree of truth of the
claim that blueness is present."

>>
Let's see.
1). The {ni}-like {ka} is not redundant given {ni} since the qualitymof anything is different from its quantity: "like the sky" is different from "very intense" (meant quantitatively -- hrd to separate in English).

2) 11.5.4&5 are both about the functions to values, not about the values themselves, presumably "x is so blue" in the two different senses.

3) Whatever is going on there, it is not indexed at {ka} .

4) The truth of a propsition is not the same as its intensity, despite the parody one often sees of fuzzy logics -- e.g., the truth of "Joe is tall" eventually (around 6') reaches pure True, the quantity keeps going (though it also may not, since it is not the same as hw tall Joe is -- or the amount of blue pigment)

We don't know very well how to handle these various notions, since English -- and most other familiar languages -- don't use them much. That does not mean they all collapse into something we do sorta know how to use. (It does mean that they were -- on Zipfean grounds given way the wrong words, but that is another matter entirely -- having to do with what someone tought they meant way back when.) --part1_15b.14e4b0f8.2ac61857_boundary--