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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:42:48 EDT

In a message dated 9/28/2002 2:08:34 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> 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.
>>
Well, the first is one old use of {ka} and works fine, as does {du'u} for the 
same purpose (and maybe a bit more clearly). But the {ka ko'a broda} usage 
is not about non-numeric amount (which is inherently quantitative, even if 
not numerical) but qualities: think adverbs of fillers for the gap "It is... 
that koa broda" -- a property not of ko'a nor broda but of the whole bridi. 
{jei} which is also numeric -- and even more restrictive -- clearly is not on 
the same task.

<<
> 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.)
I don't see how the evidence presented ("whereas") supports the claim that 
the whole is meaning less. Indeed, it seems to mean, among other things, 
that the two clauses are different, as they seem to be, since they involve 
different words -- one qualitiative and the other quantitative. I'm not 
arguing that the conceptual work is very clear here, but it seems that at 
lest that these are meant to be different is clear, and it is not obvious 
that the claim is false.

<<
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.
Where is this analogy? Not presented, so why accuse someone of using a bad 
one, when they use none at all. Now what is clear is that you, and possible 
(even probably) CLL are messing with the ambiguity of "the quality of 
redness" which may mean "redness" (i.e., \xx is red) or may mean the 
quality of the event of something being read -- surprising, for example, 
physical, for sure -- an many more. I take it that {ka} with {ce'u} was 
intended for the first of these, {ka} with a full bridi for the second \x( le 
nu ko'a broda cu ckaji x).
The last sentence here is opaque, mainly because {sumti} and {gismu} get used 
both for words and what the words stand for and I am not sure which you mean 
here, though I think at the end you mean {ka ce'u} not whatever incomplete 
thing it refers to.

<<
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.
It is not resisting quantification of a scale (although that is a perfectly 
sensible thing to do in some circumstances -- "cold" and "hot" are often more 
useful -- and obtainable -- that exact degree Celsius) but rather commenting 
on a different dimension, which may be touchy-feely, but only because that is 
the sort of think being talked about.
What is the point of the rest of this para? You don't like this discussion 
and it is connected with the distinction between quantity and quality. 
S.orry about the first, and yes, it is to the second. But the distinction is 
hardly ill-conceived (evidence that it is?) nor is any subtle distinction in 
English required, this being afairly dominant patter in most languages, I 
expect. Yes, "quality" can pretty much be interchanged with "property" for 
most of these points, since quantities tend to be numbers, which aren't 
properties. pace some set theories.

<<
. A tallness of 1 means infinitely tall. And nothing is
gained by creating artificial limits upon such a fuzzy logic treatment.
Could; doesn't have to, typically would not. Most epistemologies (not {jei2} 
would take it that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is tall (at 7'2") on a human male 
scale as absolutely true. And most fuzzy systems fold to 0 and 1 in fairly 
sensible bounds. Read up on 'em (start with Belknap. our man in Peoria).