Re: [lojban] Re: toldjuno

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/15/2001 9:02:01 AM Central Daylight Time,
phma@oltronics.net writes:

>Literally (as always, except when inconvenient) {naldjuno} is just {na
djuno}
>which could mean that he did not believe it at all (mostly what we want)
OR
>that he had no evidence for it OR that he did not appreciate the force of
the
>evidence he had OR that it wasn't true (OR some of those other things we
>don't work into our definition).  

No, that would be {nardjuno}. {naldjuno} is the lujvo for {na'e djuno} which
just negates {djuno} - the relation between the person and the truth is not
knowledge. It could be belief or surmisal, but it is not knowledge.
{toldjuno}
states that the relation between the person and the truth is the opposite of
knowledge - it has never entered his head.

Thanx.  You raise two points:

1) the scale here is roughly  a djuno bcd -a jivni bce - ?a jijnu bc - a
krici bc - a pensi b (or c) - a na pensi b (one is tempted to say "not even"
for {na} here)

2) Except for {na}, the negations seem to keep some of the underlying
assumptions of the base word: both {toldjuno} and {naldjuno}  keep that b is
true in d, while {tolkrici} is probably not very different, if (as I suspect)
at all, from {krici nake b c}  and {nalkrici } = {krici na'e bc}.  The others
are less clear because, I think, the scale is not full, i.e., the {tol} forms
are real special cases.  constructing the series is going to be interesting,
but the steps so far are clearly off the track in crucial ways.