Date:  Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:50:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199802241650.LAA23595@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: Summary so far on DJUNO
X-To:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: ad67f15d1bf8873f790eef24f7fd4ca5
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 24 11:39:09 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

> >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 the true-x2 meaning could not be given to djuno without adding a
> metaphysics place, which is not possible.

For multiple demonstrations of the falsity of that assertion ("the true-x2
meaning could not be given to djuno without adding a metaphysics
place"), see most of my recent postings, passim.

--And.