Re: more epistemic perversity

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
 >The other words relevant to this discussion are not as broadly
encompassing.
>krici pertains to believe without necessarily having justification or
>evidence.

Then {krici} is the most broadly encompassing, isn't it? Anything that you
djuno you will also krici, but not the other way around.

>I feel that Lojban needs a general word usable to report a proposition that
>someone holds/is convinced/knows which says nothing about what the speaker
>feels/knows/holds/presumes as truth.

{jinvi} seems to fit the bill. {birtyjinvi} if you want certainty added.

>I intended that to be djuno, and
>its use elsewhere in the language design is consistent with that meaning
>
>du'o, the BAI cmavo based on djuno, means "according to" - thus saying
>that the x1 of djuno is the one who is "presuming truth" if anyone is.

This is the first argument you give that makes sense to me. Indeed
"according to" seems like the x1 of {jinvi} rather than of {djuno}, so if
the link between BAIs and gismu is strict we do seeem to have an
inconsistency there.

>We also have ju'o, used to express "certainty" as contrasted with "ia"
>whcih expresses belief.  I see djuno and birti as being closely related,
>with birti being an emotional claim, whereas djuno is a justified claim.

This is no argument. First, there is no formal link between UI
and gismu. Second, as you say the link of {ju'o} would be with
the meaning of {birti}, so it doesn't tell us anything about {djuno}.

>We have the evidentials, which each pertain to epistemological means of
>knowing, some of which are peculiar to the knower.  I believe that if
>I make an assertion, using an evidential to indicate my epistemology,
>that anyone else should be able to report my claim using "djuno" and
>the corresponding epistemology to the evidential I used, regardless of
>whether that speaker is necessarily willing to presume my knowledge is
>true.

I don't agree. If you say:

                ia ta mlatu
                pe'i ta mlatu
                ju'o ta mlatu
                ju'a ta mlatu

then I will report respectively:

                la lojbab krici le du'u ta mlatu
                la lojbab jinvi le du'u ta mlatu
                la lojbab birti le du'u ta mlatu
                la lojbab xusra le du'u ta mlatu

and if it is not a cat I will add:

                i ku'i la lojbab srera i ta na mlatu

>All that should matter reagrding MY knowledge is whether >I< think
>it is true, and not whether I can convince someone else of that truth.

But why do you want to call your opinions/assumptions/beliefs/assertions
knowledge? If you wanted a general word for those then you shouldn't have
used an English word that already has a different meaning.

>I think that the internal consistentcy of Lojban requires this
>understanding of "knowledge".

The internal consistency of Lojban certainly cannot require the
redefinition of an English word. If you want to call all opinions
"knowledge", then that's your business, but other English speakers
will disagree. But I think you meant to talk of the understanding of
{djuno}, not the understanding of  "knowledge".

co'o mi'e xorxes