Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: toldjuno

From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 09:51:46 -0400

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/15/2001 7:10:07 AM Central Daylight Time, 
>[email-masked] 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"?).

No, that would be {nardjuno}. {naldjuno} is the lujvo for {na'e djuno} which
just negates {djuno} - the relation between the person and the truth is not
knowledge. It could be belief or surmisal, but it is not knowledge. {toldjuno}
states that the relation between the person and the truth is the opposite of
knowledge - it has never entered his head.

phma