[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 03:03 PM 10/9/02 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
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.
I'd really need one of the fuzzy logic people to do that, like Belknap. But moving the discussion away from colors would help.
> 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?
I'll accept the need for ce'u in ni at least as much as in ka. (I'm not sure I like using ce'u in jei.) 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