[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fuzzy questions

la stivn cusku di'e

> 1. In my previous post, I wondered if a single selmao was enough to get the
> job done, and suggested that 4 new selmao in this new family <XOI> were
> needed, one for each of the scales (nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio).

For a nominal scale there is already {xi}, for an ordinal scale there is
already {mai}. Both are used to make indicators, so their grammar is
very flexible.

To take an absurd example, instead of talking about birds, mammals, fish,
insects, etc, you could use a nominal number scale and talk about animal_1,
animal_2, animal_3, etc. The logical extension is to eliminate all
gismu and replace them with {broda xipa}, {broda xire}, etc. Memorizing
them would be difficult, though.

I'm not sure in what kind of context one would use ordinal scales,
but there are the indicators {pamai}, {remai}, etc. Perhaps you could
give a couple of examples where you would use an ordinal scale.

> 2. How do we express confidence intervals?

There is not much flexibility to do that, at least nobody has shown
how to do it. For approximate numbers using {ji'i} there are two
schools: the official take is to use for example 3ji'i45 to mean
345 +/- 50. My approach is to use the two ends of the interval, e.g.

> "I am fuzzily tallish to extent 0.5." (Ratio scale implied)
> Those are o.k. They are elegant, compact expressions of fuzziness. But the
> problem of scale specification raises its ugly head when these are
> expressed as interrogatives:
> xu do pi mu xoi clani
> What does this mean? Does it asking if I have *exactly* 0.5 tallishness?
> Then we have lost the fuzzy. Suppose I consider myself 0.6 tallish.

How can I know what 0.6-tallish means? I've no idea whether that means
that you are taller or shorter than me. What if you say "I'm 0.6-tallish,
how about you?" There is no way that I can respond truthfully with
a number, since I would be commiting myself to being taller or shorter
than you, but I have no way of knowing how 0.6-tallish translates to
meters, and if you tell me the equivalence between tallishness and meters
then tallishness ceases to be a subjective word and becomes a measure
word. What is the use of having two predicates, {galtu} and {mitre} if
they are both used for the same thing?

> Before you all think this is hopelessly artificial, here is a conversation
> I had recently in English:
> Person 1: So what are you, about 6'1"?
> Person 2: Yeah, within a couple of inches or so.

But there is no fuzzy predication there. You are just giving an approximate
number, which is perfectly fine:

        i do mitre li papibimuji'i xu?
        You are in meters 1.85approx., right?

        i go'i i klani li pimuji'i le ka jibni
        Yes, that is around 0.5 in nearness.

For approximate numbers use {ji'i}, but your example does not involve
any fuzzy predicates.

> Here's another I've heard:
> Person 1: So the train gets in at 2?
> Person 2: Plus or minus 10 minutes.

Again there are no fuzzy predicates there.

        i le trene cu tolcliva ti'u li pavo xu
        The train arrives at 14:00 hours, then?

        i klani lipi'epano le ka jibni
        With 0:10 hour in nearness.

But I don't see how fuzzy predicates, as opposed to inexact numbers,
would help here.