Re: TECH: nunsucta sidbo

[Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>]

la xorxes cusku di'e

>la veion cusku di'e
>
>>       jei/ni      mi djuno le jei ko'a slabu
>>                   I know the extent to which he is old
>>                   NOTE: not necessarily merely whether he
>>                         is old or not (cf. JC)
>
>This is an interesting distinction, which can in some way also
>be made using du'u:
>
>        mi djuno le du'u ko'a mokau slabu
>
>In any case, if that's what {jei} means, it shouldn't be
>translated as "the truth value".

  I have got to do some thinking. I was overlooking the functional
  usage of "jei". Anyhow, the truth value must be considered in the
  framework of a potentially multivalued/fuzzy logic to be usable
  in the long run.

  I found a monograph by G.H. von Wright on Logic, Philosophy
  and Language in which he handles the positions of some key
  philosophers from Aristotle to Quine (and himself). It seems
  everybody gets mixed up sooner or later :-). I'll give the
  book a more careful reading to see whether it offers any
  clues. I have even considered sending some Lojban material
  to von Wright to see whether he'd have any comments. He is
  retired but still quite active. Last summer I was queueing
  with him to a few concerts but didn't want to disturb him
  with matters outside the context - though I certainly was
  tempted as he is one of the greater philosophers of this
  century and I had a faint recollection of his being involved
  with the kind of problems we are struggling with.

>>                   ko'a zenba le ni slabu
>
>Or:                 ko'a zenba le ka slabu
>
>It's hard to tell what the difference is.

 Well, I think we must retain a distinction between quantitative
 and qualitative change (increase). In the case of "ni" (given we
 are using "slabu" for old in age) ko'a is growing older, in the
 case of "ka" ko'a is perhaps exhibiting more the effects of aging.

>>        mi zmadu do le ka [dakau] citka tu'o plise
>>        I exceed you in the quality of eating a number of apples
>>
>>   I don't think the latter example exhibits a more illegitimate
>>   use of "ka" than any other one of the comparison examples.
>
>The use of dakau there is the one proposed in the abstractions paper,
>but I think the usage proposed by Iain is both more useful, and more
>in accordance with indirect questions.
>
>I would write the sentence:
>
>        mi zmadu do le ka citka xokau plise
>
>(or {tu'okau}, but I prefer the question words) to make sure that the
>exceedidng is in how many apples are eaten, and not, for instance,
>in how fast the number of apples are eaten.

  I just might agree ;-)

>Jorge

  Veijo