xuidz & djuandz

[pycyn@aol.com]

pc:
xorxes has said:
<< Yes, but if Hui had asked {ju'apei} in Lojban, i.e.
 "what evidential are you using?" then he would not
 be agreeing that Chuang knows. But in that case, Chuang's
 answer would be overtly evasive, at least until he
 finally responds {se'o}, "I know internally".>>
and
<< Maybe {ma krasi le nu do djuno} does allow more
variation on sources?>>
and in his translation put the "whence?" or "how" question in ve djuno.  
The second is good, the third possible, but the first would not help.  The 
evidentials, like UI generally, are not claimers, in this case, disclaimers.  
If I say  ja'o p when in fact I have no evidence for it at all, only a guess, 
 true p does not thereby become false, nor, have  I the best evidence, does 
false p become true.  But the hearer has more  reason to trust me I have 
claim I have evidence, less if I admit it is only a guess, intermediate for 
hearsay  and so on and that trust is the role of evidentials.  As with the 
the more straightforeward emotives, the expression does not effect truth 
values -- that takes, as always, a bridi, a proper assertion.  I do not think 
that Hui is asking for a certificate of surety  (he is already totally 
doubtful), his challenge is directly to means that in fact Chuang might claim 
to use,
a suitable replacement for <ma> in some relevant place.