Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

Lojbab:
> >> (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.
>
> Not always.

Well if you seriously consider that a problem, it would be soluble by
whatever means would be used to identify the referent/denotation of
{mi}.

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

By "djuno proposition" do you mean the x2, or the proposition
containing "djuno"?

If the former:
You have simply restated your objection, without further justification.

If the latter:
The truth of a djuno proposition depends on the speaker in exactly
the same way that any other proposition depends on the speaker. -
Which may be no way at all; depends on your views of the matter.
So I don't understand why you would want to privilege {djuno} out
of all of the infinite number of other brivla.

> It is at least as jsutifiable that
> the truth of adjuno proposition should depend on the listener/reader.

(a) Explain what you mean. (b) Prove it is as justifiable.

> But I feel that only the person identified in the sentence, le djuno, should
> be relevant.

I know. I know.

> >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 x2 recognizes that truths are subjective.

I think that's an unhelpful thing to say. I might disagree that
truths are subjective, and it would make no difference to the meaning
of {jetnu}.

> They may be observer based
> in which case epistemology is the x2 and jetnu becomes akin to djuno.

Who would the observer be?

> They may be metaphsycially based (but observer independent within a fgiven
> metaphysics) in which case the metaphysics goes into x2.

I understand this one.

> They may be based on some fuzzy definition, in which case some minimum level
 of fuzzy truth may
> be required to call a statement jetnu, and that standard would then go in x2.

This is too vague for me to understand it.

> >> 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.
>
> Perhaps, but postmodernists use the language too %^)

Exactly. They constantly counterexemplify themselves.

If we want to create a "language" for postmodernists to fail to
understand one another in, then I'm sure one could easily come up
with some suitable gobbledygook that would render communication
impossible.

I have just realized that all the time I've been talking about
"postmodernism" I've been meaning "deconstruction". I presume that
that what you meant too, since I seemed to understand you, but sorry
if anyone got confused.

> >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.
>
> And vice versa %^)

Yes, but if you really want to end this debate and all others then
just remove that smiley and I shall *utterly* despair of you. (I only
mildly despair of you, most of the time.)

> The fact that language is indeed used by postmodernists and must be usable by
 postmodernists means that Lojban's design has to accomodate them.

Well maybe it would lead to a more productive discussion if you could
indicate how. I personally doubt that the language could be made to
embody deconstructionist ideas without ceasing to be usable as language.

--And.