From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Mar 30 12:28:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 20:28:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 42443 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 20:28:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 20:28:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 20:28:00 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.69]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010330202758.MBEZ272.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:27:58 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] the reason for x4 of {djuno}? Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:26:05 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6334 Jorge: > Well, I can't imagine the x4 of djuno (and x2 of jetnu) as being > anything other than the common epistemology that speaker and > audience must share in order to communicate successfully. Other > uses sound artificial to me, but let's see how it turns out in > practice. It doesn't sound artificial to me to say "mi/ko'a djuno that Sherlock Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street", or "mi/ko'a djuno that Sydney is the capital of Australia", and so on, so long as it is clear that the x4 is an epistemology in which a certain set of fictional propositions that include or entail x1 are held to be true. These examples work with English "know", too. However: Xod to Jorge: > > Most assertions don't have an epistemology x4 place. > > Nearly all assertions have really have tacit x4. quite so: what seems to be happening with DJUNO is that the x4 of djuno is sumti-raised out of the tacit epistemology place in the bridi expressed by x2. It follows from this that if every bridi has a tacit epistemology place then the fact that DJUNO has its x4 does not contribute to the definition of DJUNO, because even if, like KRICI, DJUNO had no x4, the epistemology place would still remain, tacit and unraised, within the x2. Hence the x4 of DJUNO turns out to be a red herring, and the old question remains, about whether for "djuno ko'a" to be true (with due account taken of the -- tacit or otherwise -- epistemology of ko'a), ko'a must be true. --And.