red joi blue

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> Yes, but that was not my point. Suppose I point to a red thing and
>> say {ta blanu}. Now, I'm conceptualizing that red thing as part of a
>> mass that contains also some blue things. Since I'm pointing at part
>> of the mass, I'm pointing at the mass, and since part of the
>> mass is blue, then the mass is blue. Which would mean that I'm
>> perfectly right in saying {ta blanu} when I point to a red thing.
>> I don't think that's how masses should work.
>
>You point to a mass, ta, which is partly red and partly blue, and say
>{ta blanu}.  That seems fairly reasonable to me.  If the referent of
>{ta} is not the mass but only the red thing, then {ta blanu} is false.

ta blanu joi xunre would be correct if the mass is both colors. ta blanu
would likely not be (though if this is a red spot on a mostly blue
object, ta blanu would work.

I think we may be getting into fuzzy logic values here.

loi cinfo cu xabju la friko seems quite true
loi cinfo cu xabju la merko seems technically true
loi cinfo cu xabju la friko ku joi la merko seems "more" true than
          either of the others.

Maybe the answer needs to be that the truth value that {And's sock, J.C.
and me} cu rorci, is an infinitismally small non-zero fuzzy value.  But
I think we consider truth values that small to be equivalent to "false".

Before we leave Jorge's example, though, I want to note that the clear
way to convey that one is conceiving of the red thing as part of a mass
which blanu is "la'e ta cu blanu".

I hesitate to open up la'e and lu'e to discussion, but they are among
the only sumti operators that haven't been embroiled in this mess.  Why
spare them?  %^)

lojbab