Fair point. I'm not arguing that the two uses of "understand" in english should have the same lojban word. But there should be a way of expressing the second use (i.e. comprehension). And since {djuno} is already doing {jimpe}'s job and more, why would we double up on the first meaning while the second meaning goes gismu-less? (I'm assuming that there isn't a gismu for "x1 comprehends subject x2". {slabu} is close I guess, but still doesn't cut the mustard, I think).
Maybe it just needs a lujvo like {smuju'o} or something.
On May 7, 2010 2:56 PM, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:--On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
"jimpe" does mean "understand that ...", it just doesn't cover all the
> I really don't like tha...
meanings of "understand", at least if we take the gi'uste definition
seriously.
Right, but you do agree that understanding some thing is not the same
> It seems like the concept of
> conprehending a thing would be one of those most basic concepts th...
as understanding some facts about the thing, right?
"Understanding a language" can have two meanings, the type of
understanding of utterances in the language that a speaker of the
language has (knowing how to use the language), and the type of
understanding that a linguist has (knowing many facts about the
language and how those facts relate to one another). The second is the
one expressed by "jimpe fi lo bangu". This is tied with the "know
that" vs. "know how to" distinction.
If you understand that nouns are not inflected in Chinese, then "do
jimpe da lo jugbau", even if you don't understand Chinese.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
...