Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:10:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712010410.XAA24390@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: ni, jei, perfectionism X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1637 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 30 23:10:21 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lojbab cu ciksi: >mi djuno tu'a/fi lejei broda >can be translated either >I know (about) the truth value of broda >or >I know whether broda is true >The latter could also be expressed other ways, but it is a colloquial >traslation equvalent to the former, and the Lojban is the way I would >prefer to translate the English. thatit happens not to parallel the >English indirect question style is irrelevant. Agreed. That isn't quite what I'm getting at. =20 If {li pa jei broda}, then {jei} is a number. {lo lidjragnostic. djuno = tu'a le jei la cevni cu zasti} *using a consistent definition, contrary = to the refgram* would be generally true, because agnostics are familiar = with 1 and 0. It claims they know a number, not that they know it's the = truth value of the claim. As a parallel, consider that {mi nelci lo skami be lo do kerfu} = veridicially claims that 1) I like a certain color, and that 2) that = really is the color of what really is your hair. It does not claim that = I approve of your hair being that color. For that you'd need an = abstraction. If {li pa jei broda} is true, then {jei} isn't really an = abstraction. HOWEVER, the fact that it is defined in this contradictory way doesn't = keep me up at night tossing and turning. I predict in the case of {jei} = that usage, following the ref grammar, will never really be ambiguous = because only the concrete or the abstract meaning of {jei} will make = sense in any given context. The example of the agnostic above is really = strained and I can't think how anyone will need to say that, so it = probably won't be reflected in real usage. Chris