Re: TECH: fuzzy

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

>"Three of the people each sort of went"
>= {ci le prenu jaa xi something ku klama}

Since this is not a use of "na", I would have no idea what it means in terms
of jitfa.  To say that the statement os false, I need only negate the mex
value "something" - I think.

>"Three of the people each did not go"
>= {ci le prenu na ku klama}


Not sure why you put the "naku" there, but that made it not normal predicate
negation, and I don;t have the negation paper handy to remind me whether
naku means the same as na when it is in that position.  "naku" has scope
issues that arepositionally dependent, and hence is not identical to "na".

I think, based on your English, that I would go something like
ro lo ci le prenu naku klama
pa lo ci le prenu na klama
^su'o
and decide that your naku is invalid to start with %^)

I would state your English using jitfa as
ledu'u ro lo ci le prenu cu klama cu jitfa
It is false that each of the three of the people goes.

>> mi sei li fuzzyvalue cu fuzzybroda cu klama
>> (the latter being an example of apllying fuzz to "mi" rather than to the
>> truth value), which cannot be accomplished easily without free modifiers.
>
>I wouldn't have a clue how to interpret that lojban sentence.

Well, since we are missing conventions and place structure for fuzzybroda,
I can understand that this would be weak in meaning %^).

MY intent, if I grasp the terminology, would be to interpret this as
saying that "mi" is fuzzily a member of the set of lo'i klama with
fuzzy value of fuzzyvalue (with a possible number of other defining parameters
omitted, such as the scale on which fuzzyvalue is defined - these would be the
unstated conventionally defined places of fuzzybroda)

Does that help?

lojbab