John Cowan wrote:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:The definition for ja'o mentions "ni'ikri", which is not in NORALUJV. It seems inherently contradictory to me; what was it intended to mean?I think it dates back to the days before the krici/jinvi distinction was clearly understood. In any event, the definition of "krici" as believing without evidence/proof is probably too strong: it should be more like believing with or without evidence/proof.
I think it dates back to before the era when people expected that lujvo would be strictly semantically compositional. Before jvojva, a word like ni'ikri could encompass krici and jinvi even if the latter two were mutually exclusive. krici is in fact not intended to be exclusive of jinvi. The point is that the belief is independent of any evidence. In that sense, believing "with or without evidence" is identical to believing "without evidence". If you invoke the relevance of evidence at all, you also need to add in "believe contrary to evidence" because that also happens in belief. lojbab