From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Mar 22 15:55:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Mar 2001 23:55:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 84538 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2001 23:55:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Mar 2001 23:55:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.188) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2001 23:55:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:55:00 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.23 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:55:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.23] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances. Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:55:00 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2001 23:55:00.0541 (UTC) FILETIME=[8195AED0:01C0B32B] From: "Jorge Llambias" la lojbab cusku di'e > >John knows experimentally that c1 is the speed of light. > >It is not true experimentally that c1 is the speed of light. > > > >To me those two statements are contradictory. > >They are semantically in contradiction. Thank you. That is all I am claiming. > >but that is beside the point that we are dealing with, which is > >whether something can be known in a system where it is not > >true.) > >You've made an assumption here - that there is one system. By "system" I meant veldjuno/seljetnu, nothing else. Let me restate my claim more clearly: ro da zo'u ro se djuno be fo da cu jetnu da >The system >wherein John knows c1 is the speed is not the same system wherein the value >c1 is not the speed. Of course not! The only system where John can know that c1 is the speed has to be one where c1 is the speed. >All this seems to be philosophy though, more than language. To me saying that every se djuno has to be a jetnu is just like saying that every mensi has to be a fetsi, I can hardly see any philosophy there, just a definition of what the words mean. >To be metaphysically neutral, we have to allow in the language such that A >does not entail B where A and B use different selbri. So we have to allow for non-female sisters too? Doesn't mensi always require some form of fetsi? >Indeed that may be a >problem in a lojban-only dictionary that is not merely descriptive, that >any defining of a brivla in terms of other brivla constitute metaphysical >assumptions that may not be necessary. What is special about Lojban in that respect? Isn't every language like that? >One need not accept such >alternate philosophies, but rejecting a gismu as meaningful or useful (and >perhaps also rejecting a cmavo as *you* often do) seems like such a >metaphysical rejection. Maybe, though I have no idea really what would constitute a metaphysical rejection. I reject some cmavo mainly on practical grounds. For example, some people like to use za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e instead of the simple nu that covers them all. But in order for me to understand what they are saying I have to first recognize and then mentally translate that word into nu, and I usually have no idea what additional information the word is adding. I have not yet found an example where I can say that it justifies the whole hassle of having to learn four more words. Unfortunately I don't have much choice in the matter because others do use them (at least za'i and pu'u) so I have already learned them. zu'o and mu'e I had to look up, as I don't know them by heart yet, although mu'e does crop up from time to time in usage. MEX words I have not learned, and mercifully almost nobody uses them yet. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.