Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 13:21:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802011821.NAA27830@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: .i .uepei mi jai selke'u X-To: amadan@USA.NET X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 184ec8fe8a047b5444c2bfc2c8afc9b8 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 02 14:38:38 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >> is that of Jorge. I don't want one person to determine the semantics of the >> language,e sopecially when it is someone that I often disagree with on >> semantics issues. But I can't hardly keep up with his level and volume. > >Well, I often found I agree with him I am sure that most of the time we do agree, but with semantics, we are often going to deal with subconscious associations, and one would presume that you coming from a different language backgrouns than Jorge or me, will come up with some significantly different cultural associations for words. Since the discussion of djuno concerns who is presupposing what when we make a claim of djuno )I am saying that the only presuppositions that can matter are the x1's snce the speaker is not part of the bridi) the word is unlike English "know" and probablyunlike many language words that equate to English "know" but which do not directly imply that the knowledgre is relative to a particular epistemology (x4). In English when we say djuno, we are presuming universal agreement ob what is knowable/true, but Lojban makes no such presumption. >(except for that tense distance >cmavo :) what happened with it finally? Is the grammar changed to >accomodate to his za/ze/zi/va/ve/vi? Or did you make something new like >my te'i? Or something else altogether?) Something new, but I would have to reach for my book and look it up %^). Not the most used construct since it was argued. lojbab