Date:  Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:08:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801212308.SAA13516@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: 00cdbdee32724c9e331eda4d054aa69d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1287
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 22 12:18:55 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

Rob Z.:
 >>fatci as defined seems totally useless to me.


Lojbab:
>For many people fatci is totally useless.

Several people have used {fatci}, thus they (or rather, we) have
found some use for it. Or maybe we were misusing it.

My personal point of view is that the use of every word involves
some metaphysics behind it, and there is nothing particularly
special about {fatci} in that respect. We might as well argue why
{blanu} or {remna} or {sfofa} don't have a metaphysics place as
well. Are those words totally useless too?

>Some people may choose to talk about same
>(especially certain kinds of philosophers, and maybe people arguing about
>the semantics of djuno %^) - after all, it seems that Jorge is attempting
to
>claim that <djuno implies jetnu with corresponding sumti> is a fatci).

I don't think I'm attempting to claim that. What I think that I'm attempting
to claim is that djuno _as used_ has always presupposed jetnu, that
"know" presupposes truth, and that therefore if djuno retains the
meaning of  "know" then it will keep being used with the presupposition
of jetnu. I can't predict the future, so it may well be that {djuno} will
deviate from this and it starts being used, unlike "know", for cases
where there is no presupposition of truth.

co'o mi'e xorxes