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

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 03:07:32 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> 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).

If ka ce'u broda is meant to mean the quality of being a broda1, all is
well. If ka is somehow meant to meant the non-numeric amount that ko'a
belongs in broda1, it is better served with jei, and a clue to this is
that ko'a is sitting where the ce'u belongs.

> 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.

The book explains this with a meaningless sentences: "Example 5.4 conveys
that the blueness comes and goes, whereas Example 5.5 conveys that its
quantity changes over time." Specifically, the "whereas" makes it mean
ingless because there is no difference between the two clauses. (The high
quality of the rest of the CLL makes the conceptual chaos of this
notorious chapter all the more noticeable.)

Drawing an analogy between ni and ka forces us to use a broken usage of
ka. We are no longer talking about the quality of redness, but the
(non-mathematically measured) *amount of the* quality of redness that's
exhibited by X. And again, since we are discussing a sumti and not a
tergismu, ka ce'u is not the tool for this job.

Why anyone would resist the quantification of a scale so vigorously as to
demand a separate, touchy-feely cmavo for it, is never explained.
Presumably this comes from an ill-conceived attempt to mirror the English
(and Latin?) concept duo of Quality and Quantity. I suppose the problem is
illuminated if we replace "quality" with "property", though the constant
need in these discussions to justify Lojban difficulties using subtle
nuances of English terms grates on me.

Bad craziness.

> 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)

I can't agree. A tallness of 1 means infinitely tall. And nothing is
gained by creating artificial limits upon such a fuzzy logic treatment.

-- 
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that
act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation?
-- Howard Zinn