Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>Lojbab:
>> >> (there
>> >> being no place for the speaker in the (default - non BAId) place structur
>> >
>> >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}.

only if "mi" is used in the bridi.  In "la djan. djuno X"
there is no need to resolve "mi", nor to know who the speaker is, to
understand the claim.  Therefore the truth-belief of the speaker should
be irrelevant to the truth of "la djan djuno X".

>> 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"?

The latter

>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. -

ta mlatu

or maybe better

ko'a mlatu (assuming that ko'a has been prespecified)

has a truth value independent of the speaker.  Or if it does not, then there
should be a BAI or context that explicitly places the speaker into the
bridi.  In the absence of any such mention, I would not feel a need to
know who the speaker was to evaluate the truth of the claim.  I want the
same to be true of djuno.

>> 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.

It is justifiable in that we have prescribed that Lojban pragmatics are weighted
 to require that a speaker be clear according to the terms of the listener.
I would interpret this among other things as requiring thatone abide by the
definitions and judgements of ones audience in the event of possible confusion.

But that is not what I "meant".  I was trying to say that a listener, not
knowing who the speaker was (say he sees this djuno statement written as
graffiti on a wall) will interpret the statement based on HIS interpretation
of djuno and the truth of x2.  IN certain media, statements can be separated
from their original speakers, and the only possible standard of jusgement
is that of the reader/listener.

But I also realize that in such media, the speaker cannot know who his readers
will be, and it makes a lot better sense for the standard of djuno to be
le djuno.

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

Well to take the obvious example, certain statements involving relativity
theory give different truths depending on the observer.

>> They may be based on some fuzzy definition, in which case some minimum level
>f 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.

Using what I understand as Belknap's version of  fuzzy truth, the truth
value of "George is bald" might be some thing other than binary 0 or 1.
If  the truth value is .9 on a  scale of 0/1, si it "true" for purposes of
evaluating "djuno"?  How about .8? etc.  If  things are based on le djuno's
perception of truth, whatever that may be, then I don't necessarily need to
know about fuzzy truth considerations.  If I have to deal with 5 different
speakers making contradictory claims about whether le djuno cu djuno, and
each speaker uses a different criterion (fuzzy level) to decide whether
le se djuno is true, then I cannot interpret the statements without going into
the fuzzy conceptions of each of those 5 speakers.

lojbab