Re: [jboske] factivity of djuno (was: RE: Gaps and Ungaps

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> 1. Djuno is factive: truth of x2 is presupposed; x2 remains true even
> if djuno is negated.
> 
> 2. x2 is claimed to be true. X djuno Y only if Y is true. Negated djuno
> makes no claim or presupposition about truth of x2.
> 
> 3. Truth of x2 is immaterial to djuno; X can know Y even if Y is false.
> 
> There was a pretty strong (though perhaps not universal) consensus
> on (2), strong enough for the matter to appear settled at the time.
> 
> If John has just talked about "the factivity of djuno", I'm pretty
> sure he was speaking loosely, and in fact referring to (2), not to
> (1).

I can live with either (1) or (2), so (2) it is.

Anyhow, my point (for Nick) stands: using djuno in kau examples is a Bad Thing.

-- 
With techies, I've generally found John Cowan
If your arguments lose the first round http://www.reutershealth.com
Make it rhyme, make it scan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Then you generally can jcowan@reutershealth.com
Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie