Date:  Sat, 24 Jan 1998 18:17:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801242317.SAA24943@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: Summary so far on DJUNO
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: c4484425bfc6273844d3fffb4d091990
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 3097
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 26 12:43:59 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

>   >    i thought Yahoo press
>   >    releases were considered defacto truth....
 >
>    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.
>
 >Nice.  Yes, I think that is an acceptable use of {fatci}.  You could also
>use {jetnu}.

What would be the x2 of jetnu for "defacto truth" in this case?

>The former, {fatci}, would be used by someone who figures that there
>is a truth and he knows it (and gets jumped on by some people on this
>list :).

But in this case, the guy who thought that it is considered
a defacto truth need not consider it so himself. And why wouldn't
someone who doesn't know what is some truth use the word
{fatci}? Couldn't someone use {fatci} to say, for example:

        mi na djuno ro fatci la lojban
        It is not the case that I know every fact about Lojban.

>The latter, {jetnu}, might well be used by someone who
>figures that 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? If someone
says {ta remna} = "that's a human being", doesn't that require
that they figure that the listener or reader knows what
standard/epistemology/metaphysics the speaker is using?
Of course that will also be so with {fatci}. Or is there an
absolute metaphysics that tells us what human beings are?
Same goes for {klama}, {badri}, {jubme} or whatever other
gismu. It's even valid for {jetnu}. Suppose someone says:

            le du'u la iesus cu cevni cu jetnu le xriso lijda
            That Jesus is God is a truth of Christianity.

Is that a true claim? We need a metaphysics to evaluate
whether that claim is true or not. Say that we find such metaphysics,
let's call it A. Then we say:

            le du'u
                le du'u la iesus cu cevni cu jetnu le xriso lijda
                    cu jetnu abu

            The claim:
                 "that Jesus is God is a truth of Christianity"
                      is true by metaphysics A.

Is this new claim true or not? We need yet again a metaphysics.
And we can go on ad infinitum. The problem is that we're trying to
include the metaphysics in the language, which is kind of
contradictory.

When someone uses the word {fatci}, that doesn't mean that
they believe that there is a truth and they know it. There can
always be disagreement, just like when someone uses the
word {blanu}. Or is there some absolute way in which we
can tell which things are blanu and which aren't. There is
always room for fuzziness, as Steven likes to point out. That
doesn't make the word {blanu} useless, nor the word {fatci}.

> -- x1 knows x2 about x3 by {having read a Yahoo press release}.
>
>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.

co'o mi'e xorxes