fuzzy bears

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

An interesting point about lojban gismu, and by extrapolation, lojban
utterances is made on page 122 of the grammer (Chapter 6 just after
discussion of Example 2.8)

Here it is:

(The notion of a "really existing, objectively defined bear" raises certain
difficulties. Is a panda bear a "real bear"? How about a teddy bear? In
general, the answer is "yes". Lojban gismu are defined as broadly as
possible, allowing tanru and lujvo to narrow down the definition. There
probably are no necessary and sufficient conditions for defining what is
and what is not a bear that can be pinned down with complete precision: the
real world is fuzzy. In borderline cases, "le" may communicate better than
"lo".)

I believe that natlangs are fuzzy, and I am pleased to know that lojban is
also fuzzy, as made explicit here in the grammer. With that in mind, I
propose a formalism for statements where explicit fuzziness is required,
which would be simpler than using <jei> or <ja'axi>. This formalism would
appear to require no change in the grammer, nor any cmavo other than a
lojban number:

<lo vofi'uze cribe pu finti le lisri>

"One or more of the things which are fuzzily 4/7  really bears creates the
story."

<lo so'e cribe pu finti le lisri>

"One or more of the things which are mostly bearish creates the story."

<le so'a cribe pu finti le lisri>

"One or more specific things each of which I describe as being almost
entirely bearish creates the story."

<vofi'uze cribe> could have many meanings, of course.

It could mean the remaining 400 pounds of bear carcass after a cougar has
eaten the other 300 pounds, for example, although that would not be a very
useful interpretation most of the time. But it would appear that at least
one meaning would be a fuzzy set description of a somewhat bearish thing.

It is already clear that one can say:

le ci cribe pu finti le lisri

"The three bears wrote the book."

The semantic space of fractional bears are unassigned in the grammer;
describing something as a fractional bear would appear to be grammatically
correct but meaningless. My proposal fills this semantic space of what a
fractional bear is by building on the already acknowledged fuzziness of
lojban utterances and setting a convention by which fractions between 0 and
1 when applied to a gismu (for example) are making explicit the fuzzy
extent of that gismu.

Thus, one way of conceptualizing lojban utterances is that these are fuzzy
utterances in which the explicit fuzzy extent cmavo is elided:

<lo cribe pu finti le lisri>

"The bear, (whose degree of bearness is obvious or unimportant) wrote the
book."

This proposed use of numbers and other mekso to make explicitly fuzzy
statements is separate and distinct from using li to convert mekso into
sumti. I can't see any reason why these statements shouldn't parse.

I often conceptualize objects and actions in the world as being explicitly
fuzzy. For example, in my medical practice I do not crisply distinguish
between diabetics and non-diabetics. There is a continuum of fasting blood
sugars in my patients. I view a patient as being "about a 5 out of 7
fuzzily diabetic" Although some consider my conceptualization of objects to
be eccentric, I believe this view more accurately reflects reality than the
artificial contrivance of an arbitrary threshold above which persons are
diabetic and below which they are not.

co'omi'e fudji stivn

Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria