Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.

["Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 06:39 PM 03/18/2001 -0500, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > I don't see any philosophy behind this, it doesn't even touch
> > the question of what is true or what can be known, it only
> > relates to the question of what {djuno} or "knows" mean.
>
> I'll go with that, although I'm not sure I agree.  So, we have:
>
>  djuno jun     ju'o know
>                     x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by
>                     epistemology x4
>
> Now, since this is, as far as I am aware, the only official definition, we 
> need
> to use and english dictionary for 'knows':

Nope.

If y'all are going to insist that djuno makes a distinction between "to be
> aware of the truth or factuality of" and "be convinced or certain of",
> you're going to need to rewrite the definiton, because that is _not_
> what the current definition says.  The current definition being in
> English, the meanings of the english words must be used.

The current definition is NOT a single word, and the whole must be used to 
get the meaning.  There MUST be an epistemology, which COULD be 
belief.  But I can "know" something by one epistemology and "know" the 
exact opposite by a different epistemology, in Lojban.

lojbab
--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org