From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Apr 15 05:09:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 15 Apr 2001 12:09:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 69220 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2001 12:09:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Apr 2001 12:09:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Apr 2001 12:09:54 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.14.80]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010415120952.TLIE283.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:09:52 +0100 To: , Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: toldjuno Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:08:58 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <9.13a1fc32.28033cac@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > Somewhere recently xorxes noted that "know" at least has the peculiarity that > to say someonne does not know x implies that x is true as much as to say that > someone does know x. He noted correctly that this does not carry over to > {djuno}, since {na djuno} literally gives the disjunction of the denials of > the conjunctive components of {djuno}, one of which is that the claimed > knowledge is true. So he proposed {toldjuno} for the corresponding > expression. I canot remember (nor find) whetehr he specificed its English, > but it should be "x1 is ignorant of x2 about x3 in epistemology x4." It also > has the condition that x2 is true in x4, like {djuno}: Why "toldjuno" rather than "naldjuno", and what would "naldjuno" mean? ---And.