Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:08:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802260208.VAA11517@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: 987febda0f2c9df97720404ba5ac3835 Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 02 13:24:27 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >Someone wrote: >>> The important point to note that it is not possible for the expressor to > change >>> the metaphysics of a simple statement. > >And and asked: >>Could it be done with a BAI? And thus responded Chris: >the case tag would be "fi'o selje'u", right? Isn't it true that there's always >an implied "fi'o selje'u zo'e" in every sentence: "with-metaphysics > the-obvious"? In the same sense that there is an implied {cu'u zo'e}, an implied {tecu'u zo'e}, etc. >But now I'm confused about something. Suppose I say: > > la selbarna cu mlatu fi'o selje'u my. > Spot is a cat under metaphysics M > >Couldn't some clever wag ask "Under what metaphysics is it true that >(Spot is a cat under metaphysics M)?" Yes, and suppose I say: la selbarna cu mlatu cu'u mi Spot is a cat, I say Couldn't then someone ask "Who says that you say that Spot is a cat?". Of course, nobody usually asks that, because the speaker is normally obvious from context, just like the metaphysics. This applies to an "is a cat" claim as well as to an "is true" claim, that's why {fatci} is not really such an oddball as lojbab thinks. > And isn't it that latter metaphysics >that's *really* what we think governs the speaker's claim that the object of >"know"is true for the speaker? Yes. >Because, after all, the sentence: > > la .and. djuno ledu'u sy. maltu fi'o selje'u my. > And "djuno" (that Spot is a cat under metaphysics M) > >doesn't imply that the speaker uses M to know that Spot is a >cat; nor by Jorge's version of "djuno" does it imply the speaker thinks Spot >is a cat -- in fact, I'm not sure it even implies that And believes Spot is a > cat! Right, it only implies that And and the speaker think that (Spot is a cat under M), not that Spot is really a cat, unless M corresponds to "really". With the metaphysics place at the djuno level we get: la and djuno ledu'u sy mlatu kei fi'o selje'u my And "djuno" (that Spot is a cat) under metaphysics M. Here the metaphysics refers to what is djuno rather than what is mlatu. In the first case, neither And nor the speaker need believe that Spot is a cat. In the second, if M is my metaphysics, both And and the speaker must believe it in order for the claim to be true. If M is Lojbab's metaphysics only And need believe it. >Hmmm, am I right about that? I had thought that "Proposition BAI sumti" >always entailed "Proposition", but now I'm not so sure... {cu'u} seems to cause the same type of interference. co'o mi'e xorxes