Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:58:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802181658.LAA06430@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: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 0543eaab10c6639e6f457081ddde4cd1 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 18 16:06:58 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Lojbab: > >> (there > >> being no place for the speaker in the (default - non BAId) place structure, > > > >Agreed. The same goes for all the gismu. Noone has proposed that > >{djuno} needs a place for the speaker. In fact, even if the speaker > >were a participant in the gismu meaning it would be pointless to > >have a sumti place for the speaker, because the speaker is > >identifiable from the context. > > Not always. Well if you seriously consider that a problem, it would be soluble by whatever means would be used to identify the referent/denotation of {mi}. > In any event, I do not thonk that the truth of a djuno > proposition should depend on the speaker. By "djuno proposition" do you mean the x2, or the proposition containing "djuno"? If the former: You have simply restated your objection, without further justification. If the latter: The truth of a djuno proposition depends on the speaker in exactly the same way that any other proposition depends on the speaker. - Which may be no way at all; depends on your views of the matter. So I don't understand why you would want to privilege {djuno} out of all of the infinite number of other brivla. > It is at least as jsutifiable that > the truth of adjuno proposition should depend on the listener/reader. (a) Explain what you mean. (b) Prove it is as justifiable. > But I feel that only the person identified in the sentence, le djuno, should > be relevant. I know. I know. > >Having said this, though, I confess that I find it hard to understand > >{jetnu}, given that its x2 is defined as "by > >standard/epistemology/metaphysics". I can imagine what might it might > >mean if x2 were for epistemology only (this makes the most sense to > >me; and your comments would make more sense too), or if x2 were just > >for metaphysics (this might be like {se nibli}). > > The x2 recognizes that truths are subjective. I think that's an unhelpful thing to say. I might disagree that truths are subjective, and it would make no difference to the meaning of {jetnu}. > They may be observer based > in which case epistemology is the x2 and jetnu becomes akin to djuno. Who would the observer be? > They may be metaphsycially based (but observer independent within a fgiven > metaphysics) in which case the metaphysics goes into x2. I understand this one. > They may be based on some fuzzy definition, in which case some minimum level of fuzzy truth may > be required to call a statement jetnu, and that standard would then go in x2. This is too vague for me to understand it. > >> The problem is that if one accpets subjectivity as possible > >> then it necessarily becomes a default because you cannot assume that > >> anyone else will necessarily hold the same truths/accept the same > >> epistemologies as you. > > > >Jorge has already addressed this. I realize that you are deliberately > >trying to put forward a postmodern position, but that just means you > >are talking out of postmodernism's collective arse. > > Perhaps, but postmodernists use the language too %^) Exactly. They constantly counterexemplify themselves. If we want to create a "language" for postmodernists to fail to understand one another in, then I'm sure one could easily come up with some suitable gobbledygook that would render communication impossible. I have just realized that all the time I've been talking about "postmodernism" I've been meaning "deconstruction". I presume that that what you meant too, since I seemed to understand you, but sorry if anyone got confused. > >I know you hold > >linguistics in very low esteem, but the fact that linguistics has > >never had anything but the utmost derision and contempt for > >postmodernism might nonetheless be taken as suggestive. > > And vice versa %^) Yes, but if you really want to end this debate and all others then just remove that smiley and I shall *utterly* despair of you. (I only mildly despair of you, most of the time.) > The fact that language is indeed used by postmodernists and must be usable by postmodernists means that Lojban's design has to accomodate them. Well maybe it would lead to a more productive discussion if you could indicate how. I personally doubt that the language could be made to embody deconstructionist ideas without ceasing to be usable as language. --And.