Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 09:25:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802251425.JAA12399@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: 57af17f8ff30449f2fcd8de51561241e X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 25 09:26:21 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Don: > la .and di'e cusku > > Anyway, it seems to me as if you are getting distracted by some > > peculiar obsession about the word "true". When I use "true" in > > speaking of the true-x2 version of {djuno}, I use it in the same > > sense as is involved in the definition of cmavo like: > > ja`a, na, ge, ga, go, gu, jei > > For any expression f by a is true only if the metaphysics M used by a evaluates > to true. That is any expression is f is a function of M and M is a function of > a: f (M (a)). Are you using normal syntax here? I have tried but failed to parse & understand it. > The important point to note that it is not possible for the expressor to change > the metaphysics of a simple statement. Could it be done with a BAI? > This is were 'jetnu' comes in. 'jetnu' > provides an argument for a different metaphysics M' under which to evaluate f > for it to be true. So we have jetnu (f, M'). Note that M' is not necessarily > dependent upon a. > > > For example, > > > > ko`a djuno le du`u ko`e mlatu > > > >would be truth-conditionally equivalent to > > > > ge ko`e mlatu gi ko`a djuno le du`u ko`e mlatu > > This is false. It cannot be false. It is true *by definition*. > Only 'djuno' is evaluated using the expressor metaphysics M (a). > The 'du'u' subexpression does not need to be evaluated to determine if the > knowee knows it, there must be only an epistemology to say how it is known. I am not sure what you are talking about. {Djuno} as defined in the quote above, or as defined by some other definition? I suppose you don't mean the former, since what you say is obviously incompatible with it. > > Anyway this complaint is unfair. The metaphysics by which ko`e in > > {ko`a djuno ko`e} is true is the same metaphysics by which {ko`a > > djuno ko`e} is true. In other words, "If X djuno Y then Y". If you > > get worried about "truth" then use logical connectives instead. > > jetnu (Y, M') /=> Y (M (a)) > An expression of Y is true by M' does not mean that I can say Y. That seems reasonable. But I don't see what it has to do with what I said. > > I don't know what you understand by > > 1. le du`u broda cu "true" > > but what *I* mean by "true" is something that would make (1) > > Again, use jetnu (Y, M') to switch the metaphysics context from M (a). > > > equivalent to (2). > > 2a. ja`a broda > > 2b. broda > > This is broda (M (a)) and this is not the same as broda (M'). Assuming that I have understood you correctly, then this is exactly the point I was addressing. According to the true-x2 version of {djuno}, {djuno ko`e} would be true by metaphysics M only ko`e is true by metaphysics M. Actually, I'd better spell it out more fully and accurately: true-x2 version of {djuno} [current version]: 1. epistemology x4 convinces x1 that P P: x2 is true about x3 by a certain metaphysics AND 2. P Clauses (1) and (2) are true by the same metaphysics, though this is not necessarily the one you are calling M(a), which I take to be the one obtaining at the level of the illocutinary act. > > You have in effect been saying that that {djuno} means > > epistemology x4 convinces x1 that x2 is true of x3 by a certain > > metaphysics, M > > This is correct. This still does not say that x2 is true nor is it necessary. I realize this. So what? Does anyone dispute it? --And.