Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:27:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801250327.WAA01954@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 59b3a10ec0ee997e664b68e5c6ccc591 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2003 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 26 12:44:22 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - > > ... you, the listener or reader, know what > > standard/epistemology/metaphysics x2 the speaker is using, and if > > not, the speaker would be willing to fill in the x2 place. > > But isn't that what happens with every word? > >Well, no. Not with {fatci}, unless they go to some effort, using one >of the BAI modals. {fatci} does not have a built-in place for the >epistemology, so the language-imposed assumption is that speaker and >listener already share and understanding. Right, that's what I meant. Lots of words don't have a built-in place for the metaphysics, so as speaker you must share some understanding with the listener. Using jetnu without filling in the x2 place is very much like using fatci: you rely on a common world view. If there is disagreement, then it will have to be sorted out, perhaps using a BAI modal. But even if every word had a place for the metapphysics, that wouldn't help much, because we still would need a common meta-metaphysics to recognize whether the claim about the metaphysics was true. > When someone uses the word {fatci}, that doesn't mean that > they believe that there is a truth and they know it. > >Well, according to the definition, that is the case (unless they are >being ironical, fuzzy, or lying). It is very straightforward. No, I meant that they don't have to know what is the truth. I thought my example was clear: mi na djuno ro fatci la lojban I don't know all facts about Lojban. That's an example of a use of {fatci} where the speaker does not know the facts in question. The speaker might even not know whether there is a fact at all, as was the case in the translation that originated this subthread: i mi krici le du'u jinvi le du'u le nuzba be fi la ia'us cu fatci I believed that it is opined that news from Yahoo are facts. So using the word {fatci} does not at all require that one believe that there is a truth, and much less to know that truth. co'o mi'e xorxes