Re: ni, jei, perfectionism

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>The same thing is more or less true of clock times.  I can say that I
>know the time of day,

Yes, and what do you mean by that? You mean: "I know what is the time
of day." It is an indirect question which English happens to allow you not
to mark explicitly as such.

>and I can say that vopi'erepa cu tcika.  But this
>does not merely mean that I know "4;21" as a number devoid of association
>with a clock convention.

Of course not. The right sequence is this:

    i mi djuno le du'u makau tcika
    i li vopi'erepa cu tcika
    i mi djuno le du'u li vopi'erepa cu tcika

You want to conclude from the first two that {mi djuno li vopi'erepa},
which is of course nonsense.

>I suspect that the answer is that the x1 of jei requires an x2 convention,
>and the translation into English suffers from English not having inherent
>predicate language nature. Thus x1 is not "the truth value of broda" but
>rather "a number which is a conventional representation of the turth value
>according to common convention". ort somethig like that.

But that's not the problem at all. You cannot djuno that number either.


>Yet the same problem is true in English:
>"The  truth value of P is 1".
>"I know the truth value of P"
>"I know 1"?

The fallacy is the same as above. Your second premise really
means "I know what is the truth value of P". English lets you use
the short form, but the meaning is still that. The conclusion you can
make is "I know that 1 is the truth value of P".

>And substituting the tag "TRUE" really solves nothing.

Right. Because that's not the problem.

{jei} is defined in the refgram both as a truth value, and as an
indirect question involving truth values. Those are the two
contradictory definitions. (The same thing happens with {ni}.)

co'o mi'e xorxes