From jcowan@reutershealth.com Wed Mar 28 08:01:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Mar 2001 16:01:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 75783 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2001 16:01:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2001 16:01:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2001 16:01:38 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[192.168.3.11]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27129; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:04:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3AC20B72.9000408@reutershealth.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:04:02 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010215 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: And Rosta Cc: lojbab , lojban Subject: Re: djuno: the key issue (was: Re: Fwd: Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan And Rosta wrote: > It seems to me that the discussion has converged on just two rival > definitions that differ on one point: for "x1 djuno x2 x3 x4" to be true, > does x2 have to be entailed by x4 (Position I), or is it sufficient for x1 > to believe (possibly erroneously) that x1 is entailed by x4 (Position II)? "... x2 is entailed by x4", I suppose. > Lojbab says (II), and (II) is what I would advocate too. But I think (I) > is closer to established usage and also to the views of the Three > Magi (pc, John & Jorge). No, I hold (II) as well. -- There is / one art || John Cowan no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein