Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 19:35:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801250035.TAA26809@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@rattlesnake.com Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: jorge@intermedia.com.ar X-cc: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <01bd28b7$c79fb260$82770ed1@roble.intermedia.com.ar> (jorge@intermedia.com.ar) X-UIDL: c5ad8244f40327989ec7a2baffb9a9c7 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2800 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 26 12:44:11 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - What would be the x2 of jetnu for "defacto truth" in this case? A phrase based on the notion of {conventional experience rather than law}; something like {tcaci selfri} rather than {flalu}. * practice (customary practice), * ritual (custom/habit), x1 is a custom/habit/[ritual/rut] of x2 under conditions x3 /:/ [also: x1 is customary/usual/the practice] /=/ tcaci (cac) * experience, x2 of: x1 [person/passive/state] undergoes/experiences x2 (event/experience); x2 happens to x1 /:/ [also has/have (of events/experiences); (adjective:) x1 and x2 are empirical; suggests passive undergoing but does not exclude active (per zukte) intent; a deserved experience: reward or punishment (= jernyfri, zanjernyfri, maljernyfri)] /=/ lifri (lif fri) * legal (pertaining to the law, licit), x1 is a law specifying x2 (state/event) for community x3 under conditions x4 by lawgiver(s) x5 /:/ [x1 is a legality; x2 is legal/licit/legalized/a legality (= selfla for reordered places)] /=/ flalu (fla) > ... 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. If they don't, it takes the kind of effort one has in English. 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. * fact (absolute truth), x1 (du'u) is a fact/reality/truth/actuality, in the absolute /:/ /=/ fatci (fac) There can always be disagreement, ... Yes. But only part of the time do people disagree with themselves. It is called cognitive dissonance and people feel uncomfortable while experiencing it. As for disagreement with other people ... well, that happens all the time. One would expect that among a bunch of biological Von Neuman machines. >I don't think that is stretching anything at all, but is exactly as >djuno should be used. Ok, that's how Lojbab says it should be used. The difference with English "know" is that according to Lojbab someone who doesn't agree that x2 is true will still make that claim. Yes, I think Lojbab is right. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com moved house; new address: 952 East St., Lenox, MA 01240 USA +1 (413) 442-7761