Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

>> Now using Lojban djuno as I have argued it, we can still use "mi djuno"
>> for "we hold" and do not need to use "fatci".  But we also don't have to see
>> relativistic by using "jinvi" because the founders who "held" those truths
>> did indeed presuppose them, and jinvi is too weak a claim.
>
>At last you are in agreement with the rest of us then. It follows
>from what the rest of have been saying that if the founders
>presupposed the beliefs to be true, then "mi djuno" would be an
>appropriate framing predicate.

I don't think that is the issue.  The issue is whether, if the founders
presuppose the truth, but >I< do not, whether >I< can say: "le finti cu djuno"
recognizing that they do, but without bringing myself and my beliefs into the
predication at all.

lojbab