Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

la .and di'e cusku
> But lujvo are no more precise
> than gismu.

Gismu are monosemous, as are lujvo.

> 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.

'djuno' means what the baseline says it does, i.e. what lojbab intended.  The
 fact that the keyword is 'know' does not mean that 'djuno' has the semantics of
 the English word.  I believe that the keyword is only a mnemonic, not as a cast
 iron definition.

> 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.

Why shackle ourselves with English semantics?  We should be striving to leave
 them behind.  If there is no need to define 'djuno' as English 'know', why do
 it?

.i la lix. di'e cusku
> A year ago, that would have been a reasonable way to partition the
> semantic space here, but it's too late.  This interpretation is so
> completely contrary to the plain text of the baseline and all usage
> to date that it cannot be supported.

If I follow what lojbab has been saying then 'djuno' is not English 'know' by
 the baseline.

What usage?

ni'oco'omi'e dn.