Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:47:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802180147.UAA10251@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: eaf4846a75e06d7c34ab4c1c58e6a54f X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 18 16:03:58 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Lojbab: > In any event, I do not thonk that the truth of a djuno >proposition should depend on the speaker. Neither does anybody else, as far as I understand. >It is at least as jsutifiable that >the truth of adjuno proposition should depend on the listener/reader. >But I feel that only the person identified in the sentence, le djuno, should >be relevant. le djuno is relevant. It has to be a person or some other entity with at least some capacity of cognition. le se djuno is relevant. It has to be a true fact. le te djuno is relevant. It has to be something such that le se djuno is a fact about it. le ve djuno is relevant. It has to be the path that takes le djuno to le se djuno. So we agree that the truth of the djuno claim does NOT depend on the speaker or the listener any more than the truth of a claim like {ta mlatu} depends on them. Our disagreement is not about any speaker-dependance of the truth. It is about whether the truth of the full bridi requires or not the truth of the x2 clause. Obviously that is merely a matter of definition of {djuno}. Both are possible, so at most we can argue what criteria to use for the definition and which definition is supported by the current wording. You already made it clear which one you intended. What I find a bit distressing is your going back and forth between conceding and not that the use of the _English_ word "knows" entails a presupposition of truth. We keep going back and repeating ourselves on that. But if you really think that it doesn't, then we can all stay happy with the current definition. co'o mi'e xorxes