Re: x4 of djuno (was: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO)

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

>>From where I am standing, it looks as if Jorge, & I, and John,
>and others think that, in accordance with the baseline, "djuno"
>means "know". You, on the other hand, have sought to persuade us
>that, contrary to the baseline, it means "be convinced that".

I'm sorry, but the baselining does not affect this issue.  The baselining
froze the keywords - which have many times been stated NOT to be exact
synonyms, and the place structures, however loosely defined.  Thus far,
all of these things are only stated in English language terms, but I should hope
 that we have made it quite clear that the use of English words in writing
the definitions is NOT intended to force all the semantic implications of
trhose English words onto the Lojban.  The word djuno approximates the
meaning of English "know" compounded by the requirement for certain
additional relationships (a thing known, a subject, and an epistemology)
to also be present.  equally significant is the absence of a place relating to
a speaker - hence my claim that the speaker's recognition of the knowledge
as truth is NOT significant, whether it be so for English "know" (and I think
there has been some evidence that even for English that claim is only
fuzzily true).

We CANNOT yet define the specific semantics of the Lojban words - how they
divide up semantic space - sufficiently to "baseline" them.  I do not believe
that we can do so with less than the prescribed 5 years minimum of usage,
and even then it will depend on people getting free enough of English so that
their Lojban usages are not mere loan-translations of English thoughts, which
is what they are for most people right now.

I think that the baseline does say that djuno has 4 places.  It is clear that
the x1 is an agent/experiencer (depending on your attitude regarding the
nature of knowing).  It is clear that the x2 is a du'u which in at least some
universe of discourse cvould be true.  It is clear that x3 is a "subject", a
generality from which x2 is taken as a specific fact.  It s clear that x4
speaks to eother the truth or the knower's knowing - I prefer the latter, but
 others seem to prefer the former.  They are only different if we are talking
about knower-dependent truths (and for these it is not clear that "jetnu"
can properly express them, so that djuno -> jetnu becomes nonsense for such
cases.)

If I correct someone's word choice in Lojban, it will NOT be on the basis of
the exact English words chosen for the baseline gismu list, but on the basis
of the perceived meaning which I tried to express.  I recognize that this
limits the effectiveness of the baseline, but I also claim that, while my
 intentions can go on record when I make such statements, they have no more
 binding
effect than thoise of any other Lojbanist in evolving the meaning of the
gismu over the next secveral years - all I am saying is what my occasionally
 imperfect English was TRYING to get across.

And of course for those who choose to be nervous about this, I do not see
that this will make the language "change" in any significant way from whatever
it is now, or whatever it would be if the English phrasing were somewhat more
accepted as being semantically rigorous.  What it hopefully WILL prevent is
large numbers of the sort of argument we havce been having regarding djuno,
where the various sides are inferring their positions based on subtleties in the
 English semantic definition of "know".

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.