Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:42:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802231542.KAA01139@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 8796c4ce0eab8cb4f06319819d0b48ef X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 23 12:00:00 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Goran: > I also like the that in lojban one can control what he says, and > how much he says. You don't want to make number explicit? OK, number is > optional. You don't want to decide when has something happened, if it > even has yet? No problem, tense is optional, too. Also, if I want to > include my judgement about the truth in other people's convictions, I > can always tanru it with mibyseltu'i or jetnu (with implied "tu'a mi" in > x3) or whatever. Again, since this is a constructed language, we can fix > whatever we like as meaning of specific words (did you read "The Meaning > of Liff"?), You are starting to write like pc ;-) I don't really think that your point is relevant to the issue about {djuno}. Even if the true-x2 meaning were given to {djuno}, a lujvo could be created to be the same except for the x2's truth being unspecified. And vice versa. > but (mainly) for the reasons stated above I like and's > definition, the one I believe lojbab. basically agrees with, even if it > does significantly differ from English usage (as well as that of any > other natural language I know). I wish I knew which definition you meant. --And.