Re: .i .uepei mi jai selke'u

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

>> is that of Jorge.  I don't want one person to determine the semantics of the
>> language,e sopecially when it is someone that I often disagree with on
>> semantics issues.  But I can't hardly keep up with his level and volume.
>
>Well, I often found I agree with him

I am sure that most of the time we do agree, but with semantics, we are often
going to deal with subconscious associations, and one would presume that you
coming from a different language backgrouns than Jorge or me, will come up
with some significantly different cultural associations for words.  Since
the discussion of djuno concerns who is presupposing what when we make a claim
of djuno )I am saying that the only presuppositions that can matter are the
x1's snce the speaker is not part of the bridi) the word is unlike English
"know" and probablyunlike many language words that equate to English "know"
but which do not directly imply that the knowledgre is relative to a
particular epistemology (x4).  In English when we say djuno, we are presuming
universal agreement ob what is knowable/true, but Lojban makes no such
presumption.

>(except for that tense distance
>cmavo :) what happened with it finally? Is the grammar changed to
>accomodate to his za/ze/zi/va/ve/vi? Or did you make something new like
>my te'i? Or something else altogether?)

Something new, but I would have to reach for my book and look it up %^).
Not the most used construct since it was argued.

lojbab