Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:30:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802201830.NAA05555@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Rob Zook Sender: Lojban list From: Rob Zook Subject: Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199802201807.KAA12895@gateway.informix.com> X-UIDL: 11ee3049969be659bf0d0f08f9390bbf X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Feb 20 13:20:03 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - At 05:38 PM 2/20/98 GMT+0, And Rosta wrote: >Don: >> > The fact that it is possible to define a lujvo to have >> > meaning (1), or indeed to have the meaning Lojbab wishes to attribute >> > to {djuno}, really has no bearing on what the gismu mean, except in >> > as much as a meaning easily rendered by lujvo might have less claim >> > to be expressed by a gismu. >> >> 'djuno' means what the baseline says it does, i.e. what lojbab >>intended. > >This is surely the crux. Are we really going to have to interrogate >Lojbab at inordinate length about the meaning of every gismu. And >note that even the gismu that seem straightforward, e.g. djuno, can >turn out not to be. But so far only 3 people (by my count anyway) on this list seem to have problem with the straightforwardness of djuno's entry. >> > So in this case, the availability of >> > 'jetyju`o' certainly means there is no pressing *need* to have >> > {djuno} mean "know", but noone has argued otherwise. >> >> Why shackle ourselves with English semantics? We should be striving to leave >> them behind. If there is no need to define 'djuno' as English 'know', why do >> it? > >This is the mabla anti-malglico attitude rife in Lojban. Just because >English does things one way doesn't mean Lojban has to do them >differently. > >We just have two competing definitions of {djuno}. One, which is >different from but akin to English "know", and which has been clearly >articulated, and the other which Lojbab has been striving to >articulate with varying degrees of success. > >How do we choose between them? - e.g. if we are going to use {djuno}, >which meaning will we intend it to have? Do we just ask Lojbab to >pronounce on the matter, and do our best to understand what his >pronouncements mean, and just swallow and accept it if they turn out >to be incoherent, or do we actually deliberate the issue, looking >at the intrinsic sensicality of the candidate meanings, and their >relationship to the meanings of other Lojban vocables? Perhaps it would help if you could repost this so-called "clearly articulated" view of djuno? I remember no such animal. Rob Z. -------------------------------------------------------- "...That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support." --- Lysander Spooner, No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority