Received: from mail-wg0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]:58535) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Sa66I-0008D3-3O; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:43 -0700 Received: by wgbdt10 with SMTP id dt10sf575628wgb.16 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q2uyH2HjsK+DRddIb5ZGvh++5X1RnzHJOYAcbkhQ9zk=; b=AyOb2mkLwX3bcI2ZGzKNwieLx2yhbQwN5n2CY9XerbYgUb9lzBY31eEZHpEnjKGEb9 noR82Z0HpBrWBTXSIVu3O3ZcfjwZ0M40A9wFl5EtYRr2cCnjaaZlrlz+jKTARrMf+O2Y sPW/yDexAZfNaSXRrnMrdlREA+9oJglohULng= Received: by 10.216.215.105 with SMTP id d83mr77284wep.34.1338473491955; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.53.9 with SMTP id f9ls570236eec.0.gmail; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.27.203 with SMTP id e51mr5316734eea.12.1338473490210; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.27.203 with SMTP id e51mr5316733eea.12.1338473490128; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f50.google.com (mail-ee0-f50.google.com [74.125.83.50]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d52si2996561eei.1.2012.05.31.07.11.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of matt.mattarn@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.50; Received: by eekc13 with SMTP id c13so443569eek.23 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.150.84 with SMTP id x20mr11701758bkv.26.1338473489870; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.189.13 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7283edbe-071e-4e94-ab35-f9aabcc85263@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> References: <7283edbe-071e-4e94-ab35-f9aabcc85263@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:11:29 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] fatci From: Matt Arnold To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of matt.mattarn@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=matt.mattarn@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 4234 I agree. Suppose you want to say there is no such thing as a fact. You would use the word {fatci} for what it is you deny exists. -Eppcott On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:52 AM, tengo wrote: > Some people dislike the word {fatci}. Why? Let's look into its > definition: > > x1 (du'u) is a fact/reality/truth/actuality, in the absolute. > > What's wrong with it? We can't be sure that we know the absolute > truth! But does it make such a word useless? I state, no. There are > good uses for it. First, I'll try to make up some arguments against > {fatci} and analyze them. > > Argument: usage of {fatci} can be misleading. > > Well, it can be misleading, if we look at it from a "usual" point of > view. For example: > > .i lo du'u lo gerku ca catlu lo mlatu cu fatci > The fact that a dog looks at a cat is the absolute truth. > > Too much self-confidence. :) However, if we look at it from a logical > point of view, there is nothing wrong with it. What is {lo gerku ca > catlu lo mlatu} alone? It's a claim that a dog looks at a cat. Does it > have to be the absolute truth? No, because in my opinion, any claim > about the reality is a belief at best. We can take it as "the author > believes that a dog looks at a cat". Now what is {xy fatci}? It's a > claim that some fact X corresponds to reality. Does it have to be the > absolute truth? No! The same rule applies here: "the author believes > that the fact X corresponds to reality". So, let's try to interpret > the same sentence in a logical way: > > .i lo du'u lo gerku ca catlu lo mlatu cu fatci > .i lo gerku ca catlu lo mlatu > A dog looks at a cat. > > That's it. From a logical point of view, the truth-value of the two > sentences is the same. So, don't be afraid and don't be misled! > > Argument: there is not much use for such a word. > > Why not? We can very well talk about something that we don't know. For > example, we don't know for sure whether the space of our universe is > infinite. However, we have the words "infinite space", we have the > symbol "=E2=88=9E", and we have a lot of uses for it. > > Now to the actual examples. We have the words {nu} and {fasnu} to > convert between actual claims and events: > > .i lo gerku ca catlu lo mlatu > .i ko'a nu go'i > .i ko'a fasnu > > Very easy! Remember, that {ko'a fasnu} doesn't have to be "the > absolute truth". The same way, the words {du'u} and {fatci} allow to > convert between actual claims and facts. > > .i lo gerku ca catlu lo mlatu > .i ko'e du'u go'i > .i ko'e fatci > > And again, {ko'e fatci} is just a claim, the same way that {lo gerku > ca catlu lo mlatu} is a claim. > .i de'u melbi mi .i xu go'i do ji'a > > Another example: > > .i mi na mulno birti lo du'u ro lo se djuno be mi bei lo to'e mucti > munje cu fatci > I'm not completely sure that all that I know about the real world are > actual facts. > > Argument: we don't need {fatci} because we have {jetnu}. > > There are similar gusmu in Lojban with different sets of places, and > there are uses for each of them. First, the truth values of {lo gerku > ca catlu lo mlatu} and {lo du'u lo gerku ca catlu lo mlatu cu jetnu} > can be different depending on the referents of implicit {zo'e} at > jetnu2. So we'd need to put something explicit there, maybe {zi'o} or > something that means "reality". Do we have a word for "reality"? :) > And then, why bother, when we have a nice gismu {fatci}? :) > > .i xu do ca ca'o xebni zo fatci .i ko joi mi casnu > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "Lojban Beginners" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscrib= e@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an-beginners?hl=3Den. > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.