[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Summary so far on DJUNO
> > ... you, the listener or reader, know what
> > standard/epistemology/metaphysics x2 the speaker is using, and if
> > not, the speaker would be willing to fill in the x2 place.
>
> But isn't that what happens with every word?
>
>Well, no. Not with {fatci}, unless they go to some effort, using one
>of the BAI modals. {fatci} does not have a built-in place for the
>epistemology, so the language-imposed assumption is that speaker and
>listener already share and understanding.
Right, that's what I meant. Lots of words don't have a built-in
place for the metaphysics, so as speaker you must share some
understanding with the listener. Using jetnu without filling in
the x2 place is very much like using fatci: you rely on a common
world view. If there is disagreement, then it will have to be sorted
out, perhaps using a BAI modal.
But even if every word had a place for the metapphysics, that
wouldn't help much, because we still would need a common
meta-metaphysics to recognize whether the claim about
the metaphysics was true.
> When someone uses the word {fatci}, that doesn't mean that
> they believe that there is a truth and they know it.
>
>Well, according to the definition, that is the case (unless they are
>being ironical, fuzzy, or lying). It is very straightforward.
No, I meant that they don't have to know what is the truth. I thought
my example was clear:
mi na djuno ro fatci la lojban
I don't know all facts about Lojban.
That's an example of a use of {fatci} where the speaker does not
know the facts in question.
The speaker might even not know whether there is a fact at all, as
was the case in the translation that originated this subthread:
i mi krici le du'u jinvi le du'u le nuzba be fi la ia'us cu fatci
I believed that it is opined that news from Yahoo are facts.
So using the word {fatci} does not at all require that one believe
that there is a truth, and much less to know that truth.
co'o mi'e xorxes