Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

Lojbab to Jorge:
> >>In English, however, subjective context is not the default, whereas
> >>in Lojban it is.
> >What????? Is that part of the baseline?
>
> Since the x4 of djuno is tied to the x1, and not to anyone else

agreed

> (there
> being no place for the speaker in the (default - non BAId) place structure,

Agreed. The same goes for all the gismu. Noone has proposed that
{djuno} needs a place for the speaker. In fact, even if the speaker
were a participant in the gismu meaning it would be pointless to
have a sumti place for the speaker, because the speaker is
identifiable from the context.

> and multiple epistemologies can generate different knowledge and even
> contradictory knowledge/truths,

I'm not sure that's true, but I don't think it's relevant, anyway.

> subjectivity does indeed seem to be the default.

I have no idea what you mean by this or how it follows from the rest
of what you said.

> That we make an explicit distinction between fatci and jetnu which also
> brings in a form of subjectivity, we recogbnize that subjective truth is
> possible.

So far as I can see, neither of {fatci} and {jetnu} is more
subjective than the other or than any other gismu.

Nor can I see anything profound or revealing about Lojban metaphysics
or culture in the distinction between {fatci} and {jetnu}.

Having said this, though, I confess that I find it hard to understand
{jetnu}, given that its x2 is defined as "by
standard/epistemology/metaphysics". I can imagine what might it might
mean if x2 were for epistemology only (this makes the most sense to
me; and your comments would make more sense too), or if x2 were just
for metaphysics (this might be like {se nibli}).

> The problem is that if one accpets subjectivity as possible
> then it necessarily becomes a default because you cannot assume that
> anyone else will necessarily hold the same truths/accept the same
> epistemologies as you.

Jorge has already addressed this. I realize that you are deliberately
trying to put forward a postmodern position, but that just means you
are talking out of postmodernism's collective arse. I know you hold
linguistics in very low esteem, but the fact that linguistics has
never had anything but the utmost derision and contempt for
postmodernism might nonetheless be taken as suggestive.

> >Lojbab:
> >>djuno refers to the mental state of another, and hence I can report that
> >mental
> >>state without reference to my own mental state regarding the same subject.
> >
> >If that were the case, then {djuno} should be translated as "is convinced"
> >and not as "knows", which means something else.
>
> Given the baseline, I cannot change the keyword even if i wanted to.  I am
> uncertain whether I am allowed to add this as a parallel/alternate reading in
>  the place structure as a synonym.  I was doing so on occassion while working
> on the dictionary before, adding in extra English words that would enable
> them to show up in the English side of the dictionary using the KWIC concept
> that the dictionary is based on.  Given that you and others seem to think that
> "is convinced" would be a meaning change, I am not sure such an unqualified
> synonym addition is permitted without an explanatory note indicating
 controversy

I hardly think a note indicating controversy is justified. There is
in fact on this issue an unusual degree of unanimity. A lot of people
have contributed to the discussion, and as far as I recall, they have
all been pretty much in agreement, except for you. If the dissenting
views of one individual is sufficient to warrant a note indicating
controversy, then let us know and we can let you know which gismu we
ourselves each render controversial.

> I'll have to consider this carefully, and I will err on teh side of caution.
> Indeed, maybe it is necessary regardless of whether I add in more synonyms,
> that I document in the dictionary that the meaning of djuno is controversial
> in its subtleties.

Again, even in its subtleties we were pretty much in agreement about
what it means. The only possible controversy that I can think of is
that John and Jorge said they thought x4 a metaphysics place. I'm not
sure whether they still hold to that.

> >Plese exclude me from that "we". I have already said that I have
> >found {fatci} quite useful, and I have seen several others use it too.
>
> People have used it, but wther they have used it in accordance with the
> baseline definition is unclear.  If there is ANY debate as to the truth
> of a proposition possible, under any epistemology or metaphysics, then
> it is not a fatci.

Agreed. I would have thought that {fatci} was a pretty easy concept
to grasp. And you constantly seem to forget that the existence of the
sentence {da fatci} does *not* entail the truth of that sentence. It
may be that nothing is a fatci, but, as with unicorns, this is simply
irrelevant as far as language is concerned. Mark and Jorge and
possibly others have already pointed this out to you. I think it
underlies a lot of your misunderstandings on the current issues: I
get the impression that you attempt to ponder what the definition
of {djuno} is by means of pondering what the nature of various kinds
of cognition is.

--And.