From pycyn@aol.com Sun Apr 15 06:27:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 15 Apr 2001 13:27:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 64276 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2001 13:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Apr 2001 13:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Apr 2001 13:27:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.a6.1297196c (3895) for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 09:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 09:27:45 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: toldjuno To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a6.1297196c.280afbd1_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a6.1297196c.280afbd1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/15/2001 7:10:07 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > Why "toldjuno" rather than "naldjuno", and what would "naldjuno" mean? > Literally (as always, except when inconvenient) {naldjuno} is just {na djuno} which could mean that he did not believe it at all (mostly what we want) OR that he had no evidence for it OR that he did not appreciate the force of the evidence he had OR that it wasn't true (OR some of those other things we don't work into our definition). {toldjuno} extracts a particular core from this, as does "ignore/-ant," leaving the rest intact -- the polar opposite in the same (dare I say "epistemology"?). --part1_a6.1297196c.280afbd1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/15/2001 7:10:07 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


Why "toldjuno" rather than "naldjuno", and what would "naldjuno" mean?

Literally (as always, except when inconvenient) {naldjuno} is just {na djuno}
which could mean that he did not believe it at all (mostly what we want) OR
that he had no evidence for it OR that he did not appreciate the force of the
evidence he had OR that it wasn't true (OR some of those other things we
don't work into our definition).  {toldjuno} extracts a particular core from
this, as does "ignore/-ant," leaving the rest intact -- the polar opposite in
the same (dare I say "epistemology"?).
--part1_a6.1297196c.280afbd1_boundary--