Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

Rob Z.:
>fatci seems to say that a fact refers to some kind of absolute
>scale, and djuno seems to say that one can refer to fact relative
>to some system of thought.
>
>fatci as defined seems totally useless to me.

For many people fatci is totally useless.  It is in the language for only
one reason (based on the long-ago discussion with pc that brought in all
this epistemology stuff).  That reason is that, if jetnu has an epistemology plk
placem there is no way to talk about such a thing as a fatci, which is
independent of epistemology.  Some people may choose to talk about same
(especially certain kinds of philosophers, and maybe people arguing about
the semantics of djuno %^) - after all, it seems that Jorge is attempting to
claim that <djuno implies jetnu with corresponding sumti> is a fatci).

lojbab