From pycyn@aol.com Tue Mar 27 19:05:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Mar 2001 03:05:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 94254 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2001 03:05:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2001 03:05:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.65) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2001 03:05:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.55.132b2a17 (17084) for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:05:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <55.132b2a17.27f2af05@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:05:41 EST Subject: Fwd: djuno debate (was: RE: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_55.132b2a17.27f2af05_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6262 --part1_55.132b2a17.27f2af05_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_55.132b2a17.27f2af05_alt_boundary" --part1_55.132b2a17.27f2af05_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/27/2001 5:09:06 PM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes: > Ummm, that's nice, but if that was your goal, you failed. I do _NOT_ > believe in objective truth. Perioud. But ve djuno gives me the > flexibility I need. > My turn to Ummm. What did I say about objective truth, which I believe in but only as inexpressible (since every expression is in language and thereby conditioned by at least some theoretical factors)? I'll even allow that whether or not your dialect has the two uses of "know" cited is a matter that depends upon a number of subjective (though intersubjective) factors. If you now know about the use of ve djuno, then it was a complete success. --part1_55.132b2a17.27f2af05_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/27/2001 5:09:06 PM Central Standard Time,
rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes:

Ummm, that's nice, but if that was your goal, you failed. I do _NOT_
believe in objective truth. Perioud. But ve djuno gives me the
flexibility I need.

My turn to Ummm. What did I say about objective truth, which I believe in but
only as inexpressible (since every expression is in language and thereby
conditioned by at least some theoretical factors)? I'll even allow that
whether or not your dialect has the two uses of "know" cited is a matter that
depends upon a number of subjective (though intersubjective) factors. If you
now know about the use of ve djuno, then it was a complete success.

--part1_55.132b2a17.27f2af05_alt_boundary----part1_55.132b2a17.27f2af05_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (rly-yg04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.4]) by air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:09:06 -0500 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:08:35 -0500 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA05537 for Pycyn@aol.com; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:15:35 -0500 (EST) From: Robin Lee Powell Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:15:35 -0500 To: Pycyn@aol.com Subject: Re: djuno debate (was: RE: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.) Message-ID: <20010327181534.V11825@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Pycyn@aol.com on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:59:57PM -0500 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:59:57PM -0500, Pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/27/2001 3:58:37 PM Central Standard Time, > rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes: > > > > I'm mostly no longer interested in this discussion, but I'd really > > appreciate it if people stopped telling me (and all my friends) that as > > a native English speaker, my 'dialect' (standard NA Engish) is invalid. > > > > Sorry you have lost interest, since it was your problem with {djuno} tht got > it started, as near as I can recall. does this mean that you now know what > {djuno} means and do not need it beaten any more? If so, I agree. More or less. In particular, ve djuno allows me to talk about knowing things that may not be true under a different ve djuno, and that's fine. > Notice, please, however, that NO ONE said that your dialect (which is > mine too, after all) is invalid. What we did say is that, perhaps > unnoticed by you as by most people, you use the word "know" in at > least two distinguishably different ways. Our task was to point this > out to you with the aim of your coming to notice the difference and to > chose between {djuno} and {birti} -- and perhaps even other things -- > on the basis of which of these is involved. Your description of your > dialect is correct as far as it goes; we just took it a step farther. Ummm, that's nice, but if that was your goal, you failed. I do _NOT_ believe in objective truth. Perioud. But ve djuno gives me the flexibility I need. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Information wants to be free. Too bad most of it is crap. --RLP --part1_55.132b2a17.27f2af05_boundary--