Re: Cowan denounces "je'a xi <number>"

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

lao aaaaaaaaaaa John aaaaaaaaaaa die cusku
> Let me make it clear here and now that:
> 1)  My proposal of "je'a xi <number>" as a way of managing fuzziness
>     was a typographical error;
> 2)  What I meant to propose was "ja'a xi <number>", which is not
>     scalar but represents "degree of truth"
> 3)  That I do not and will not propose assigning meaning (fuzzy or
>     otherwise) to "je'a xi <number>" (it's already grammatical).

(3) doesn't make sense. It's grammatical, but you won't assign it
meaning? Why do you want it to be grammatical and meaningless?

It seems fairly pointless to have {jaa xi} without {jea xi}. They're
two versions of the same kind of thing, and if one can be fuzzy then
so can the other. The kind that Steven is most interested in - "ish"-
like meanings (as in "this is greenish") - is {jea xi}.

Still, since logic seems to get by with only NA-type negation, it
seems reasonable for us to try to manage with only {jaa xi}, and see
how it goes.

coo mie and