Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: toldjuno

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:36:01 EDT

In a message dated 4/15/2001 9:02:01 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >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). 
> 
> 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
> 

Thanx. You raise two points:

1) the scale here is roughly a djuno bcd -a jivni bce - ?a jijnu bc - a 
krici bc - a pensi b (or c) - a na pensi b (one is tempted to say "not even" 
for {na} here)

2) Except for {na}, the negations seem to keep some of the underlying 
assumptions of the base word: both {toldjuno} and {naldjuno} keep that b is 
true in d, while {tolkrici} is probably not very different, if (as I suspect) 
at all, from {krici nake b c} and {nalkrici } = {krici na'e bc}. The others 
are less clear because, I think, the scale is not full, i.e., the {tol} forms 
are real special cases. constructing the series is going to be interesting, 
but the steps so far are clearly off the track in crucial ways.