From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Mar 18 21:06:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 05:06:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 89374 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 05:06:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 05:06:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.147) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 05:06:31 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:06:29 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.17 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 05:06:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.17] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Knowledge (was: Random lojban questions/annoyances Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 05:06:28 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2001 05:06:29.0176 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B3A1380:01C0B032] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e > > But some opinions are held with more certainty than others, > > {birti} is useful to make that distinction. > >A whole gismu to denote a minor deviation of amount in another gismu? >Perhaps we could use a gismu for "big dog". Well, we already have gismu for "female sibling" and such, and even for "sofa", so why not? > > It certainly does. If you say that A believes B you are making > > a judgment. > >Not at all. I am objectively reporting the personal claims of A. "Sophie >is a Muslim" is objective fact. Meaning you couldn't possibly be wrong? Once you have stated that she is a Muslim there is no way you could be convinced that you were wrong in your call? >"Sophie KNOWS Mohammed is Allah's only >prophet" is not objective, because I am sneaking in my own agreement with >her. I don't understand why you call it sneaking in. You are certainly stating as part of your claim that it is true that Mohammed is Allah's only prophet, but what's sneaky about that? Is it because the subclause is in x2 instead of x1 as it would be if you used jetnu? > > I don't see any special bias sneaking in with djuno. Nothing > > that doesn't sneak in with jetnu. > >Because if I tell you something is true, the fact that I am saying it >means that I think it's true. Yes, and the same thing happens when you tell me that something is knowledge. >But in the case of narration, to >automatically insert my own judgement is questionable. Narration? {djuno} is narration and {jetnu} is not? co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.