From sentto-44114-2877-959550060-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun May 28 21:39:31 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 26401 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 21:39:30 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 28 May 2000 21:39:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 563 invoked by uid 40001); 28 May 2000 21:41:03 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 560 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 21:41:02 -0000 Received: from hk.egroups.com (208.50.144.91) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 28 May 2000 21:41:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2877-959550060-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2000 21:41:01 -0000 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: To: lojban@egroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:40:55 EDT Subject: [lojban] xuidz & djuandz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com