Re: djuno and ce'u

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> > There is nothing about the nature of Lojban that requires x2 of djuno to
> > be a true proposition.
> > There seems to be something about your
> > interpretation of djuno (or maybe even the English "know") that presumes
> > that something known is "true".

la .and. cusku di'e
 
> That's right. That's what "know" means. And both usage and the
> baselined gismyste show that "djuno" means "know".

And is basically correct, except that in Lojban, truth (and as a result
knowledge as well) is relative to a so-called "epistemology", which
in this case would better be called a "metaphysics".  This
allows sentences like "Ptolemy knew that the orbits of the
heavenly bodies are circular, by the metaphysics of Aristotle."
 
> I don't see how you are trying to make your point. By using
> scarequotes you are implicitly attributing the belief in the
> truth of the knowee to the knower rather than yourself.
> 
> If you tell me that you find
> 
>   He knows that Christ was born on Christmas Day and she knows that
>   Christ was born on Christmas day.
> 
> acceptable, then I will not believe you.

Nor I.

> > I am not sure what you mean.  We have "krici" for believe, which is
> > identical in the first 3 places to djuno, but requires no
> > epistemological place, because no epistemologically based evidence is
> > required for belief.
> 
> It may be that no epistemologically based evidence is required for
> {krici}. But it is required for belief.

In Lojban, "believe" is split between "krici", which requires no
evidence, and "jinvi", which does.  "krici" is closer to "have
faith that".

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban