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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:26:05 +0100

Jorge:
> Well, I can't imagine the x4 of djuno (and x2 of jetnu) as being
> anything other than the common epistemology that speaker and
> audience must share in order to communicate successfully. Other
> uses sound artificial to me, but let's see how it turns out in
> practice.

It doesn't sound artificial to me to say "mi/ko'a djuno that 
Sherlock Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street", or "mi/ko'a djuno that
Sydney is the capital of Australia", and so on, so long as it is
clear that the x4 is an epistemology in which a certain set of
fictional propositions that include or entail x1 are held to
be true. These examples work with English "know", too.

However:

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.

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.

--And.