Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:46:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802181846.NAA12944@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: cb434729d9623d69d9ed5d168890a99a X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 18 16:07:30 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Lojbab: > >Since the keywords aren't defining, I don't see why they can't be > >changed to better ones: > > because the keyowrds were the first thing about the gismu list that WAS baselined. They could thereafter only be changed by convoluted debate and consideration. They were frozen before we had even > settled on what the words meant as > conveyed in the place stuructures, much less before we started debatingw hat > the words in the places stuructures meant. > > >I don't see why they can't be > >changed to better ones: the language isn't changed; only the > >documentation is. > It is the documentation that is frozen, not the language. I see. In that case perhaps it would be best to create some non-baselined but more useful and less misleading documentation, and leave the original documentation as Holy Writ to be consulted only rarely. > >> I did not put the speaker in a privileged position > >> with regard to x2's truth; I did not say that x2 had to even be true - only > >> that it had to be known by the epistemology x4. > > > >The problem with this is that it can't be "known" by any epistemology > >at all unless it is true. > > Epistemology is defined as a means ofknowing. Thus if there is an > epistemology for something it MUST be known to those who subscribe to that > epistemology (barring subjective epistemologies). The logic of the latter sentence is flawed. If there is a means of leaving the room it does not follow than anyone actually leaves the room. > Since what you feel is true and what I feel is true differ, you would have > the truth of "john knows X" differ based on which of us said it, and that > seems silly. 1. It certainly is silly. And it is certainly does not follow from my favoured definition. The truth of "John knows X" depends on whether X is true and not whether you or I feel X is true. Surely this should long ago have been brought home by the many examples Jorge produced to illustrate this point. 2. Please change "John knows X" to "ko`a djuno ko`e". This debate is not any longer about what The English phrase means. It is about what the Lojban phrase means. > the truth of a proposition shgould be independent of the > speaker and listener. It is independent of the speaker and listener. I really can't understand why you keep on thinking that I or anyone else thinks otherwise. > >Not so. You must additionally assume that that metaphysics is valid. > > I make no assumptions as to metaphsycial validity in defining the > language. fatci is defined as being true in the absolute, regardless of > what metaphysics is considered. See remarks above on "metaphysics" and "fatci". > >I don't find your definition of {fatci} very convincing. Acording to > >you, {ro da zo`u go da fatci gi da na jitfa de}. I, feel, though, > >that {fatci} should be the same as what {jetnu fe zi`o} would > >mean. > > But it is not, since we specifically added fatci to mean somethig else. Again, this is a non sequitur. Your purpose in adding fatci does not alone define what fatci means. You may, however, legitimately say: "I advocate or recommend meaning M for gismu G, because G was originally intended to mean M". As you may have noticed, I am actually very respectful of that kind of recommendation, but I do gag a bit when what is recommended is too much on the silly side. (Not the case with djuno. Possibly is the case for fatci, but I don't understand it yet.) --And.