Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30924 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 21:40:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 May 2000 21:40:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo19.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.9) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 May 2000 21:40:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id a.cc.5245397 (6397) for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 17:40:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:40:55 EDT Subject: xuidz & djuandz To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2875 Content-Length: 1360 Lines: 26 pc: xorxes has said: << Yes, but if Hui had asked {ju'apei} in Lojban, i.e. "what evidential are you using?" then he would not be agreeing that Chuang knows. But in that case, Chuang's answer would be overtly evasive, at least until he finally responds {se'o}, "I know internally".>> and << Maybe {ma krasi le nu do djuno} does allow more variation on sources?>> and in his translation put the "whence?" or "how" question in ve djuno. The second is good, the third possible, but the first would not help. The evidentials, like UI generally, are not claimers, in this case, disclaimers. If I say ja'o p when in fact I have no evidence for it at all, only a guess, true p does not thereby become false, nor, have I the best evidence, does false p become true. But the hearer has more reason to trust me I have claim I have evidence, less if I admit it is only a guess, intermediate for hearsay and so on and that trust is the role of evidentials. As with the the more straightforeward emotives, the expression does not effect truth values -- that takes, as always, a bridi, a proper assertion. I do not think that Hui is asking for a certificate of surety (he is already totally doubtful), his challenge is directly to means that in fact Chuang might claim to use, a suitable replacement for in some relevant place.