Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o

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

Don:
> la xorxes. cusku di'e
>
> > (1) English "know" has presupposition of truth.
> > (2) {djuno} is glossed as "x1 knows x2 about x3 by epistemology x4".
> > (3) Neither the gloss nor the (irrelevant to Lojbab) usage seen up
> >      to now suggest that {djuno} does not share property (1) with
> >      English, and I don't see the point of denying it such property.
> > A lot of the discussion with Lojbab has been about (1) rather than
> > about (3). Obviously we can't argue (3) if we disagree about (1).
>
> The correct lojbanic word for (1) is 'jetyju'o':
>
> d1 knows d2=j1 (du'u) about subject d3 by epistemology d4 is true by
 metaphysics
>  j2
>
> 'djuno' is not the translation of English 'know' that presupposes truth,
>  'jetyju'o' is.  Are we all forgetting how to be good little lojbanis and
>  compose precise lujvo for concepts we wish to express?

I am certainly not forgetting this. But lujvo are no more precise
than gismu. The fact that it is possible to define a lujvo to have
meaning (1), or indeed to have the meaning Lojbab wishes to attribute
to {djuno}, really has no bearing on what the gismu mean, except in
as much as a meaning easily rendered by lujvo might have less claim
to be expressed by a gismu. So in this case, the availability of
'jetyju`o' certainly means there is no pressing *need* to have
{djuno} mean "know", but noone has argued otherwise.

--And.