Subject: Re: [lojban] ka ka (was: Context Leapers)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:23:51 EDT

In a message dated 9/27/2002 1:50:08 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.)