[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 12:47 PM 10/9/02 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >Here is a summary of my thoughts on ni, yet again, but this time because I
> >was asked:
> >
> >Conceived to provide a quantitative counterpart to the qualitative ka, it
> >is redundant with jei and it's based on a deprecated notion of ka.
> >
> >The deprecated sense of ka to which ni is bound was the miserable result
> >of the conflation between the English "redness" as the property of being
> >red (that's ka ce'u xunre; that which is shared by all red things) and the
> >amount of redness (that's jei ko'a xunre; it is 54% red).
>
> That is not what jei means, though the two are similar in meaning IFF the
> scale of quantity is from 0 to 1.
> jei ko'a xunre du pimuvo
> means that the truth value of "X is red" is .54 on some kind of fuzzy logic
> scale. In other words, it is 54% true that ko'a is red. This may or may
> not mean that it is a color blend which is 54% red and 46% na'e
> xunre. That would constrain fuzzy logic usage too much, IMO.
I'd like a concrete example showing why this is broken.
> ni ko'a xunre du pimuvo
> means that there is X's redness is measured as .54 units on some scale,
> which may or may not be a unitary one.
You take ni to refer to the first sumti. What about ni ko'a ko'e broda?
> Now it happens that colors often are often defined such that truth value
> overlaps with quantity measurement. But most other concepts do not mix
> purely, and the measure of X-ness is usually NOT the same as "the truth
> value of (ko'a Xs)". To argue about "ni" solely on the basis of color
> seems to intentionally limit the concept.
>
> lojbab
>
> --
> lojbab lojbab@hidden.email
> Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
> 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
> Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jboske-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
--
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