Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

Lojbab:
> In any event, I do not thonk that the truth of a djuno
>proposition should depend on the speaker.

Neither does anybody else, as far as I understand.

>It is at least as jsutifiable that
>the truth of adjuno proposition should depend on the listener/reader.
>But I feel that only the person identified in the sentence, le djuno,
should
>be relevant.

le djuno is relevant. It has to be a person or some other entity
with at least some capacity of cognition.

le se djuno is relevant. It has to be a true fact.

le te djuno is relevant. It has to be something such that
le se djuno is a fact about it.

le ve djuno is relevant. It has to be the path that takes le djuno
to le se djuno.

So we agree that the truth of the djuno claim does NOT depend
on the speaker or the listener any more than the truth of a claim
like {ta mlatu} depends on them.

Our disagreement is not about any speaker-dependance of
the truth. It is about whether the truth of the full bridi
requires or not the truth of the x2 clause.

Obviously that is merely a matter of definition of {djuno}.
Both are possible, so at most we can argue what criteria to use
for the definition and which definition is supported by the current
wording. You already made it clear which one you intended.

What I find a bit distressing is your going back and forth
between conceding and not that the use of the _English_
word "knows" entails a presupposition of truth. We keep
going back and repeating ourselves on that. But if you really
think that it doesn't, then we can all stay happy with the
current definition.

co'o mi'e xorxes