Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:54:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802231454.JAA28816@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o X-To: ljm@ljm.wownet.net X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 4c0b0691ea20971742a18207385b62a1 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 23 11:59:29 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >I think the word 'fact' doesn't assume the particular event to be true, >isn't it? If a group of people (assumed they're living on an isolated >island and do not know nothing outside) consider the sky is red, we say >that is a fact (to them) that the sky is red (in English). > >Is this what you're debating about? Well, we are debating about that with regard to Lojban, but I am not even sure we could agree on that for English, given the debate thus far %^) We seem to have different ideas of what is permissible in English. Some people seem to be saying that a usage of "fact" with "the sky is red" is inherently ironical. But English usage should not necessarily dictate Lojban usage in any case. Thus knowing how the Chinese equivalent is used is important. lojbab