[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/5/2002 8:46:09 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@hidden.email writes: << And Rosta's idea of truth values extending above and below 0 and 1 is just> And, indeed, can be mapped onto it in a variety of ways, depending on the new scale goes. The extended scale is somethimes easier to read, however (though messier to play with). << This means mapping a qualitative set upon the quantity scale, which is all "qualitative" really is: words and phrases standing for numbers or number ranges. To establish and vigorously defend a different cmavo for a distinction on the order of Roman numerals vs. Arabics seems ludicrous, particularly in the absence of a rigorous way to specify the quality:quantity map being used. (Hint: yes, I am referring to ni and ka.) >> Interesting claim, but so counter to obvious experience and common sense (and the history of mankind) that it is going to need a lot (booklength, at least, probably) of justification before anyone should feel compelled to give it any heed or pay any attention to claims based upon its truth. << In the context of fuzzy logic, tall=1 either means he is the tallest imaginable, or that nobody can dispute that he's tall. This really correlates to an infinite height. However, Kareem may certainly be beyond the "tall enough" limit. Big deal. >> Or that he is over some selected (for whatever reason) threshold -- and one can surely find other ways to do this. the infinite value one is possible but not very useful and so rarely (if ever) used. << What is the distinction between "truth values" and "comments"? >> A truth value is the value the claim actually receives on evaluation, a comment is a claim that such-and-such is the actual evaluation (like most claims, these can be wrong -- in various degrees even if our metalamguage is also multivalent). << I have a little problem with ja'a + CAI. It emulates the UI, where a ui covers .5 the truth scale and uinai covers the other. But it's the same ui; here with ja'a and na it's a different cmavo and no "-nai". To improve the emulation we should use "nanai" or "ja'anai" -- or better yet, just stick with the digits God gave us. >> Huh!? {ui} -- and {uinai} -- have nothing to do with truth scales at all, thay have to do with happiness scales, if that makes any sense, and even then it is not clear that {ui} and {uinai} exhaust the scale: what about {uiru'e} or {uicai} and especially {uicu'i}? And, obviously, {ja'a} and {na} are not a pair like {ui} and {uinai}, but two entirely different critters: a connective and a comment. {ko'a na broda} doesn't mean "{ko'a broda} is false," a metalinguistic claim; it claims the complementary situation to that claimed by {ko'a broda} -- or however negation is defined in a given system -- an object linguistic claim. {ko'a ja'a broda}, on the other hand, does make the metalinguistic claim that {ko'a broda} is true. << Another issue with ja'a + CAI is that CAI can already float wherever it likes in a bridi, and could modify the ".i" as well, so including ja'a in there is totally redundant. >> But freefloating {cai} is about an emotion, not a metalinguistic comment, so the {ja'a} is needed to make it stick to that point rather than, say, unbounded loathing. << And: 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. >> I hope you don't mean that ja'axipibi melbi is less than melbi! I should think it means the le melbi is .8 on [0, 1] of melbi. >> That is indeed (I think) one of the things that And might mean here: it is not beautiful short of 1.0 -- maybe with he possibility of going on after, of course. This is, I gather, his b. But even on a, it is not clear that ko'a is beautiful -- where do you draw the line? Since I am taking the {ja'axipiPA} expressions as comments -- claims about the truth evaluation of the embedding sentence -- I don't see either of these reading as forced. |