*old response to And on fuzzy proposals

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

And on fuzzy logic proposals:
>A. The proposals are to express 4 things:
>
>(1a) degrees of {jaa} & degrees of {na}
>(1b) degrees of {jea} & degrees of {nae}
>(2a) degrees intermediate between {jaa} & {na}
>(2b) degrees intermediate between {jea} & {nae}
>
>B. The current proposals for ways of expressing them are as follows:
>
>(1a) jaa + CAI & na + CAI
>(1b) jea + CAI & nae + CAI
>(2a) i.  number expression + xoi
>     ii. jaa + xi + number expression
>(2b) i.  number expression + xio
>     ii. jea + xi + number expression
>
>Of these, only (2a/b.ii) require no change to the syntactic portion of
>the grammar; they're ugly quick fix solutions that (I think) John is to
>adopt in the refgrammar, in order to avoid a grammar change (in the
>lojbo sense of "grammar change").

To which I'll add

sei li {quantifier} ninjetnu [se'u]

which can be attached to ja'a, je'a, na, na'e, and a bunch of other
things as needed, requires no grammar change, but does require agreement
on the appropriate lujvo (which need no be ninjetnu).

Being fond of cu'o, which I certainly expected/intended to have
application to fuzzy logic expression, this could also be done with the
shorter though more elliptical "sei {quantifier} cu'o [se'u]"

Then there is the indicator/discursive je'u which has only 3 degrees of
positive or negative strength - not as flexible as what Steven has in
mind, but certainly useful for many fuzzy expressions.

Somewhat less flexible than a free modifier, but more flexible than the
above proposals would be to use the quantity modal at the bridi level:
"sela'i li {quantifier}" for the value on the scale, possibly with a
fraction slash and scale maximum.

NONE of these require new grammar or cmavo.  If they are not ideal for
some reason, they are still at least as expressive and flexible as any
of the proposals, and barely more wordy.

>> first of all NA only acts on the entire selbri.  NAhE can act on a piece of
>> a selbri.  It is ths a part of the metaphorical apparatus of tanru-making.
>
>But with NAhE you can predict what the modified selbri will mean,
>whereas with tanru you can't, or at least not nearly as much.

Not really.  You do not know what scale is implied when NAhE is used,
and the vaguenesses that are possible (as opposed to plausible) are as
nebulous as tanru.  For example does "na'e dzukla" mean that the x1 is
running, or that he is walking-in-place, or that he is performing some
other action involving all expressed sumti which contrasts in some
"other" way with "walk-going" (maybe he is telephoning the
"destinations", and his "fingers are walking through the "Yellow Pages"
- a reference to American commercials for business phone listings - and
the contrast with actual "walking" seems cutely apropo).

Any of these could be implied by na'e.

>I'm willing to accept that something in MOI (I guess it would be glossed
>"extent selbri" or "degree selbri") *might* do for (1b) and (2b), but
>this won't do for (1a) & (2a), because (1a) & (2a) the require something
>with the syntax of NA.  As for whether {cuo} would do for (1b) & (2b), I
>reject the notion that degrees of truth are degrees of probability.

Since there is NO usage history for "cu'o" and I put it in based on my,
umm, less than thorough understanding of what might be needed for fuzzy
logic, we can define what "cu'o" means by what is is useful for.  If a
quantifier+MOI construct would be useful in a fuzzy logic context, I
wouldn't have any qualms with making it clearer that cu'o was intended
for just that context.

(If someone has presumed some different (and useful) application for
"cu'o", I would be happy to hear it - not knowing what of any
applications Cowan may have put into the refgrammar.)

Steven answered among other things with the problem:
>I suspect the best solution would be a very general one.  Say, for
>example, that I were thinking of an object which is fuzzily in semantic
>space between a cow <bakni> and an oak tree <cindu>.  Further suppose
>that I am using a six position ordinal scale (0,1,2,3,4,5) where "0 of
>5" means pure cow and "5 of 5" means pure oak tree and the particular
>object I have in mind is fuzzily a 2 of 5 cow :  oak tree.  I have been
>using something like <refihumu> for saying the number, but this simply
>reflects my ignorance of the language, and probably isn't really right.
>
><le tarmi ku refihumu xoi baknycindu le miho ckilu>
>
>"The "thing" is fuzzily 2 of 5 on our cow - oak tree scale."
>
>"On a 0 to 5 fuzzy ordinal scale where 0 is a cow and 5 is an oak tree,
>the thing is a 2 out of 5."  (That is, the thing is more cowish than oak
>treeish, but it has good helpings of both).

And this could be done using intervals and my use of cu'o as:
le tarmi  cu bakni bi'o sei refi'umucu'o se'u cindu

or with other formulations using the other existing-grammar constructs
that I described above.  But this one is cute in that it puts the fuzzy
measurement on the connector that defines the scale - it is thus MUCH
clearer than "le mi'o ckilu".

lojbab