Date:  Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:16:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801210716.CAA12271@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Summary so far on DJUNO
X-To:         rzook@INFORMIX.COM
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: 0cfa155a8429d57ee17602b8aec751b2
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 818
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 21 09:55:00 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

Rob Z.:
>fatci seems to say that a fact refers to some kind of absolute
>scale, and djuno seems to say that one can refer to fact relative
>to some system of thought.
>
>fatci as defined seems totally useless to me.

For many people fatci is totally useless.  It is in the language for only
one reason (based on the long-ago discussion with pc that brought in all
this epistemology stuff).  That reason is that, if jetnu has an epistemology plk
placem there is no way to talk about such a thing as a fatci, which is
independent of epistemology.  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).

lojbab