Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:40:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801210040.TAA28511@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Rob Zook Sender: Lojban list From: Rob Zook Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199801202338.PAA23731@gateway.informix.com> X-UIDL: ebecbc5148221e48c87af88686672dd8 Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1076 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 21 09:50:24 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Just to look at the definition one more time (to refresh my memory): djuno [ jun ju'o ] know x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4 So something like "I know (fact) cesium has an atomic weight of 55", "I know I went to the store yesterday", "I know 6+3=9", or "I know that Fred says he went to the store yesterday". This seems a little inconsistant with fatci. Or is it not a safe assumption that one must also be able to use the x2 value as the x1 value of fatci? fatci [ fac ] fact x1 (du'u) is a fact/reality/truth/actuality, in the absolute 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. Rob Z. -------------------------------------------------------- Were it offered to my choice, I should have no objection to a repetition of the same life from its beginning, only asking the advantages authors have in a second edition to correct some faults in the first. -- Ben Franklin