Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:35:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802240235.VAA29252@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: fa7d623c904fd7f3b4eddb27ee737aa6 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 24 09:51:32 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. Why is it not possible? How come there are several gismu that talk about truth and don't have a metaphysics place? (xusra, jinvi, kanxe, and many others.) If I say: (1) le du'u ti mlatu cu jetnu ko'a enai ko'e "That this is a cat is true by metaphysics A but not by metaphysics B." Am I asserting {ti mlatu}? Consider: mi xusra le du'u ti mlatu I assert that "this is a cat" is true. Am I asserting that it is true by metaphysics A, B, some other? If you can't talk about truth without forcing in a metaphysics place then lots of gismu are not possible. How about kanxe: "x1 is a conjunction stating that x2 and x3 are both true". True by what metaphysics? Is that gismu possible? co'o mi'e xorxes.