[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> a.rosta@hidden.email writes:
>
> <<
> . I wonder if there will be ambiguous cases, when
> pi PA values are ambiguous between (a) how much p is happening,
> and (b) the extent to which p satisfies the threshold criteria
> for being true at all. For example, {ko'a ja'a xi pi bi melbi}
> might mean that ko'a's beauty measures .8 in millihelens, or
> it might mean that ko'a is not quite beautiful but is close to
> the threshold of beauty. I'd prefer to stick with the latter
> reading only.
> >>
> Shouldn't be, for, as your example shows, you are talking about (at
> least) two different things: quantity of a preoprety and truth value
> of a claim ({ni} and {jei}). But ti does seem that you are not
> always clear (nor am I about what you say) which it is you are talking about.
I'll try to be clearer.
I think there are three degrees of truth: true, sort-of and false.
Degrees of quantity map to these degrees of truth, so that
scale of quantity can be divided up into portions corresponding
to the three degrees of truth.
If we distinguish quantities that correspond to different truth
degrees, we can collapse truth and quantity. E.g. "X is true"
can be understood as "X has a quantity in the True range",
while "the quantity (in True range) of X exceeds the quantity
(in the True range) of Y" can be paraphrased as "X is truer than
Y".
> <<
> > I would take it that xorxes' {ja'acai} etc. are of the class of
> > comments, with "barely". I am less sure where to put {ja'axipiPA}.
> > They look like more precise comments, but are translated as
> > functions, like "very." Since I think that functions should be
> > represented in the selbri, not off to the side, I will take them too
> > as comments, though a good translation is not always obvious.
>
> The distinction you draw is a valid one that I hadn't thought of
> before. I'd say that the 'comment' construal of JAhA+CAI better
> approximates what I had in mind when I proposed it, though the
> simple notion of there being degrees of truth (analogous to the
> speed of something that is moving: fast:moving :: very:true) is
> not incompatible with functionhood.
>
> As for JAhA+XI, that was developed (by Official Persons) as a way to
> do fuzzy logic, so the intention of that is that it be function
> not comment.
> >>
> But moving fast is a different predicate from moving -- or else is a
> property of moving (a {ni}) so stays in the predicate range--
> functions, not comments.
"ja'a cai" = "it's very very true that (he's moving)", which
implies that he's moving a lot, or fast, or suchlike. It is
not a robust way to assert that he is moving fast, but it's
a convenient shorthand.
> The official line is not perfectly clear what it meeans. I take it
> to be a way of talking about fuzzy values -- comments, then -- not a
> way of affecting them (nor effecting them neither).
That's how I take it too.
--And.