ni, jei, barely, almost

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

John to Chris:
> > >"jei" is probably 0-adic also, and is related to "du'u", which is now
> > >understood as a subtype of "ka" that is always 0-adic.
> > I'd propose we define {jei} as {du'u xukau}.  AFAIK it would be consistent
> > with usage, at least my usage before xorxes convinced me to switch over to
> > {du'u xukau} :-)
> Essentially correct, except that:
> > Here's a shot in the dark: I used to use {ni} and {jei} and don't anymore;
> > when I did, in my mind they were more or less synonymous except that {jei}
> > suggested that the implied {xukau} would have a binary value, and {ni}
> > emphasized a fuzzy value:>
> Your "ni" is actually "jei"; truth values can be sharp or fuzzy, but in
> either case "jei" is the right thing.  A definition based directly on
> "xukau" doesn't allow for fuzzy returns, unless we grant that "xu" can
> be answered with a fuzzy answer (we have no direct way of mentioning
> the fuzzy predicates that define fuzzy sets).

1. I haven't had the original message yet so don't know what was proposed.
I'm amazed at the idea that duu is a subtype of ka. In general, I wish
the existence of NU be forgotten.

2. There are two distinct kinds of gradience in truth values. The first
concerns the fuzzy boundary between true and false: we take T & F to
be points 0 & 1 with nomansland between them. The second concerns degrees
of truth and of falsity: how much would the world have to change for
some state-of-affairs to become the case (if it is false) and to cease
to be the case (if it is true). If you expressed this in numbers, then
you'd use the full scale (of (I think) real numbers), with negative
numbers for falsity and positive for truth.
I think I once suggested that {jei} denote the former type and {ni} the
latter (though I'd prefer to use selbri+duu).

3. To what extent, I wonder, do we have ways of expressing these varieties
of truth gradience?
We seem not to have anything intermediate between {na} and {jaa}. I think
that's the sort of thing Steve has been saying we should have.
As for the gradable T & F, Jorge has proposed additions to NAHE:

> > > How do we say these in Lojban:
> > >        I touched it.
> > >        I barely touched it.
> > >        I almost touched it.
> > (1) Either (a) it shd be something that modifies the selbri,
> > semantically, so not something from UI, or (b) it should be
> > along the lines of Steve's suggestion, i.e. a specification
> > of degrees of truth, so, I guess, should be new additions to
> > selmao NA.
> I thought that something in NAhE would fit nicely:
> je'a      NAhE     scalar affirmer; denies scalar negation: Indeed!
> xu'e               scalar affirmer/quasi-negator: barely
> xa'u               scalar negator/quasi-affirmer: almost
> no'e      NAhE     midpoint scalar negator: "not really"
> to'e      NAhE     polar opposite scalar negator
> na'e      NAhE     contrary scalar negator: other than ...; not ...;
> [{xu'e} and {xa'u} stand for the possible {ju'e} and {ja'u}.]

I'd expand the paradigm:

   very true
   true
   slightly true (true, but only just) - BARELY
   truish (not definitely true, but more true than false)
   indeterminate
   falsish (not definitely false, but more false than true)
   slightly false (false, but only just) - ALMOST
   false
   very false

But these should denote the polarity of bridi. "Scalar negators"
modify the sense of the selbri, according to what scale the
selbri meaning involves. For such scales, it is desirable to have
at least the following degrees:

   to a large positive extent
   to a positive extent (unspecified or ungradable)
   to a small positive extent
   to a small negative extent
   to a negative extent (unspecified or ungradable)
   to a large positive extent

(Few scales are unbounded in both directions. Some examples are:
acceleration:deceleration, convexity:concavity, hot:cold (relative to
room temperature) rise:fall.)

It seems a bit excessive to request 15 new cmavo, so I wonder
whether we might extend the grammar of existing cmavo to cover
these 15 meanings. I thought about zi/za/zu or vi/va/vu, but
decided to see what one could do with CAI:

  cai   CAI  intense emotion  attitudinal: strong intensity
  cu'i  CAI  neutral emotion  attitudinal: neutral scalar
  pei   CAI  emotion ?        attitudinal: with what intensity?
  ru'e  CAI  weak emotion     attitudinal: weak intensity
  sai   CAI  strong emotion   attitudinal: moderate intensity

  jaacai   very true
  jaa(sai) (fairly) true
  jaarue   slightly true (true, but only just) - BARELY
  narue    slightly false (false, but only just) - ALMOST
  na(sai)  (fairly) false
  nacai    very false

- these I think are quite good.

For indeterminate, fuzzy:
  nanaicai        near 1.0
  nanai(sai)
  nanairue
  jaacui = nacui  0.5
  jaanairue
  jaanai(sai)
  jaanaicai       near 0

- these are less satisfactory, but they're a start.

I'm less sure about the following NAhE forms. If we used them then it would
be nice to have rafsi for {cai} and {rue}.

  jeacai  to a large positive extent
  jea     to a positive extent (unspecified or ungradable)
  jearue  to a small positive extent
  naerue  to a small negative extent
  nae     to a negative extent (unspecified or ungradable)
  naecai  to a large positive extent

What do rodo reckon?

---
And