Summary of summaries on DJUNO

[Robin Turner <robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR>]

Have I got this right?

ORIGINAL POSITION
1. Lojbab claims that both "know" and "djuno" mean to apply an
epistomology to one's satisfaction.
2. And (and others) claim that both "know" and "djuno" mean to be aware of
something which is objectively true.

MODIFIED POSITION
1'. Lojbab concedes that English usage generally supports position 2. for
"know", but this does not have to apply to "djuno.
2'. And (and others) maintain that since "djuno" means "know" in
the gismu list, it should still have meaning 2.

Perhaps the problem is that we don't have much agreement about "facts",
and whether there are absolute and relative (?) facts:

djuno [ jun ju'o ] know

x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4

fatci [ fac ] fact

x1 (du'u) is a fact/reality/truth/actuality, in the absolute
(cf. datni, jitfa, sucta, xanri, jetnu, fasnu, zasti, cfika, saske)

Personally, I can't imagine what a non-absolute fact would be; "fact"
strikes me as one category which does NOT show prototype effects.  To use
the famous example, if the ancient Greeks thought it was a fact that iron
pyrites was gold, they were simply wrong.  If we say "To the ancient
Greeks, it was a fact that iron pyrites was gold" we are either saying
that they thought it was gold but they were wrong, or they defined "gold"
as including both what *we* call gold and iron pyrites.


co'o mi'e robin


<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8309>

"There are three types of logician: those who believe in the undistributed
middle, and those who don't"