From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Mon Mar 19 10:57:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 18:57:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 10364 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 18:57:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 18:57:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 18:57:10 -0000 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA04784 for lojban@onelist.com; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:03:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:03:49 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances. Message-ID: <20010319140349.S3953@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@onelist.com References: <20010318183938.H3953@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.2.20010319131250.00c02230@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010319131250.00c02230@127.0.0.1>; from lojbab@lojban.org on Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 01:16:02PM -0500 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 01:16:02PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > 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. That seems to be directly contradicting what John has been saying. I'm fine with your interpretation, as it allows 'mi pu djuno' for something I used to know but have been corrected on. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Information wants to be free. Too bad most of it is crap. --RLP