RE: [lojban] the reason for x4 of {djuno}?

[Value Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> Xod to Jorge:
> > > Most assertions don't have an epistemology x4 place.
> >
> > Nearly all assertions have really have tacit x4.
>
> quite so: what seems to be happening with DJUNO is that the x4
> of djuno is sumti-raised out of the tacit epistemology place
> in the bridi expressed by x2.
>
> It follows from this that if every bridi has a tacit epistemology
> place then the fact that DJUNO has its x4 does not contribute to
> the definition of DJUNO, because even if, like KRICI, DJUNO had
> no x4, the epistemology place would still remain, tacit and
> unraised, within the x2.


This is a very elegant solution! Unfortunately, while the x2 of a jei
abstraction is an epistemology, the x2 of a du'u is only a sentence text
that expresses it.

One can add a vedu'o place to anything, I suppose, which converts the
discussion to the ancient one of modal vs. sumti.


> Hence the x4 of DJUNO turns out to be a red herring, and the
> old question remains, about whether for "djuno ko'a" to be
> true (with due account taken of the -- tacit or otherwise --
> epistemology of ko'a), ko'a must be true.


ko'a must be true according to the x4, right?



-----
"The trees are green, since green is good for the eyes". I agreed
with him, and added, that God had created cattle, since beef soups
strengthen man; that he created the donkey, so that it might give
man something with which to compare himself; and he had created
man, to eat beef soup and not be a donkey.