Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Lojbab:
> >> 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.

One can't say *anything* without "bringing oneself and one's beliefs
into the predication" (I am assuming that that locution is defined by
the example of the putative workings of djuno's x2). Or,
alternatively, one can say everything without "bringing oneself and
one's beliefs into the predication". There's nothing special about
djuno.

To answer the issue as you frame it, it really depends on what
bringing yourself and your beliefs into the predication means. If
(and only if) asserting "ti gerku" is bringing yourself and your beliefs
into the predication, then "le finti cu djuno" would be too.

--And