Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:53:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802191853.NAA16200@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 11b295907e378b233a0919557a0c140f X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 19 14:11:02 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Don: > la xorxes. cusku di'e > > > (1) English "know" has presupposition of truth. > > (2) {djuno} is glossed as "x1 knows x2 about x3 by epistemology x4". > > (3) Neither the gloss nor the (irrelevant to Lojbab) usage seen up > > to now suggest that {djuno} does not share property (1) with > > English, and I don't see the point of denying it such property. > > A lot of the discussion with Lojbab has been about (1) rather than > > about (3). Obviously we can't argue (3) if we disagree about (1). > > The correct lojbanic word for (1) is 'jetyju'o': > > d1 knows d2=j1 (du'u) about subject d3 by epistemology d4 is true by metaphysics > j2 > > 'djuno' is not the translation of English 'know' that presupposes truth, > 'jetyju'o' is. Are we all forgetting how to be good little lojbanis and > compose precise lujvo for concepts we wish to express? I am certainly not forgetting this. But lujvo are no more precise than gismu. The fact that it is possible to define a lujvo to have meaning (1), or indeed to have the meaning Lojbab wishes to attribute to {djuno}, really has no bearing on what the gismu mean, except in as much as a meaning easily rendered by lujvo might have less claim to be expressed by a gismu. So in this case, the availability of 'jetyju`o' certainly means there is no pressing *need* to have {djuno} mean "know", but noone has argued otherwise. --And.