Date:  Mon, 5 Jan 1998 19:32:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801060032.TAA03246@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: <djuno>
X-To:         mark.vines@wholefoods.com
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <U16081.883989885@UICVM>
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2142
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan  5 19:32:28 1998
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>By "this use of <djuno>", are you referring to _any_ use of
>{djuno} with something other than {mi} in the x1 place?  Or
>are you referring only to my statement:
>
>{le kavbu cu djuno lo du'u le renro [ku] ba'o renro le bolci}
>
>Perhaps you should restate what it is that you consider so
>odd about "this use of <djuno>".

To me, what is odd about this is that the "schema" (to use your term) for
me is the rules of the game of baseball, which is determined by the umpire.
With this schema, the catcher <djuno>s the fact that the ball is caught
only through the statement of the umpire. This seems very awkward and wrong
somehow, and thus <krici> or some other word seems better than <djuno> here.

However, you have proposed an interesting alternative schema which may make
more sense for the experience of a baseball fan than the "rules of the
game"; I would be interested in hearing more about this alternative schema
- is it sufficiently  universal and uniform so as to serve as a basis for
"knowledge"?

>My (obviously fallible) understanding of your position is
>that you consider {djuno} to be suspect when it isn't in
>the first person, that any x1 other than {mi} requires an
>explicit x4 epistemology place.

<djuno> requires one of:

1. an explicitly given x4 schema
2. a culturally, contextually, or textually apparent schema
3. a first-hand experience (using mi or related cmavo)
4. a 3rd person omniscient author

If <djuno> does not have one of these 4 things, than it is unclear (to me)
what it means. I think <djuno> differs in this way from <viska> or most
other gismu, where the meaning seems independent of an epistemology,
although of course an epistemology can be tacked on with appropriate cmavo.
viska, for example has a selbri referring to viewing conditions, but that
seems straight forward. In the natural (nonbaseball) schema I use, knowing
seems like an internal experience which is inaccessible to others. Perhaps
my "default" schema for <djuno> differs from others.

-Steven


Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria