TECH: xoi & xio - current state of proposals

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

[Unless specifically requested to do so (unlikely!) I shan't comment
on November's big debate on fuzziness, even though I printed the lot
out, read it all, and made copious notes. Instead I shall give the
current state of the specific proposals I've made.]

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").

C. For (2a), Jorge had proposed jeu(nai)(+CAI) but this I reject not
only because it won't accommodate numbers the way Steven wanted but also
because {jeu}/{jeunai} means "Honestly"/"I'm kidding" or "I am telling
the truth"/"I'm telling falsehoods", rather than "it is true/false that".
The difference between {jaa} and {jeu} is especially clear in subordinate
bridi.

D. I'm still unsure what "number expression" should be. Some inelegant
& very dissatisfying options:

  sohi cehi xoi      [many %]           "very truish"
  fiu zahu re xoi    [1/more than 2]    "truish"
  fiu re xoi         [1/2]              "halfway true"
  fiu mehi re xoi    [1/less than 2]    "falsish"
  sou cehi xoi       [few %]            "very falsish"

Steven must have his own preferences. Me, I'd like numbers for "almost
all", "just over half", "just under half", "almost none".

E. If the number used for (2a-b) must be a fraction, then (1a) and (1b)
can be done using {xoi} and {xio}.

  mahu sohi xoi     mahu sohi xio      very true
  mahu soo xoi      mahu soo xio       fairly true
  mahu sou xoi      mahu sou xio       slightly true; barely
  niu sou xoi       niu sou xio        slightly false; almost
  niu soo xoi       niu soo xio        fairly false
  niu sohi xoi      niu sohi xio       very false

({mahu (zahu no) xoi} = {jaa},
 {mahu (zahu no) xio} = {jae},
 {niu (zahu no) xoi} = {mehi no xoi} = {na},
 {niu (zahu no) xio} = {mehi no xio} = {nae})

F. Lojbab objected, to NA/NAhE + CAI:
> Indicators can go before/between/after ANY words in the language that
> apply solely to the main grammar.  Thus, except for quotations si/sa/su
> and NAI which has a non indicator use, and maybe a couple more, there
> is NO constraint on when they can be said.  If CAI were to be used in
> the non-indicator grammar, then that would mean that indicators could
> not be used in any place where a CAI might possibly be inserted,because
> the result would be ambiguous. AND THE PARSER WILL NOT DETECT IT.
> Thus hypthetically "mi na uicai gunka ca le cabdei" I don't work today
> (extreme happiness associated wiht the "NOT" of working). is ambiguous
> in the spoken langage because it must be gramamtically interpreted with
> all indicators removed, and you do not know whether the CAI is truly
> removable, or whether "mi na     cai gunka ca le cabdei" should be
> entertained. The parser would always remove it. But the parser would
> ALSIO remiove it in "mi na cai gunka ca le cabdei" because that says
> that I experience extreme unspecified emotions at the thought of NOT
> working today."

You understand these matters better than me, but I would have thought
the following rules would work (even though they don't work according
to the current grammar; they require a grammar change).
1. If CAI is immediately preceded by NA or NAhE, combine them.
2. If you don't want your CAI to thus combine, then use {gee}, as in
   {na gee cai} = "Not [I-emote-intensely]", vs. {na cai} = "Far from
   true; very false".

G. More from Lojbab:
> >The problem is (i) {cuo} expresses a probability, which is not what
> >I was proposing, and (ii) {cuo} (or {jei}) are brivla, whereas what
> >is needed is something of NA and NAhE type function.
> >But the idea of using so'V is something I was toying with before I
> >made the +CAI proposal. If you would consider two new selmao
> >that take a PA and yield a NA and NAhE, then I will consider using
> >PA. This might delight Steve, who has persistently been asking for
> >a way to use numbers.
> fuirst 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.

> So too would be PA+cu'o as a modifier  so'ucu'o broda and na'e broda have
> very similar grammars, and indeed na'e may be close to synonymous with
> nocu'o.   Yet in a very real sense "na" can also be equated to "nocu'o"
> though it has a different grammar.

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.

> Goingthe other way, equating some PA+cmavo = NAhE or PA+cmavo = NA means
> that the constrcuts can be used in a lot more places than in selbri,
> because NA and NAhE occur in more places that selbri. I am not sure
> whether these are interpetable, and someone would have to do a copious
> analysis (as well as determine whether the result causes grammatical
> ambiguity, which it very well might.

Quite. This is the forum for discussing these issues.
I intend that number+XOI and NA+CAI be used wherever {jaa} can be,
and that number+XIO and NAhE+CAI be used wherever NAhE can be.

coo, mie and