Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o

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

Don:
> > 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.

This is surely the crux. Are we really going to have to interrogate
Lojbab at inordinate length about the meaning of every gismu. And
note that even the gismu that seem straightforward, e.g. djuno, can
turn out not to be.

> 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.

Agreed by all, I think.

> > 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?

This is the mabla anti-malglico attitude rife in Lojban. Just because
English does things one way doesn't mean Lojban has to do them
differently.

We just have two competing definitions of {djuno}. One, which is
different from but akin to English "know", and which has been clearly
articulated, and the other which Lojbab has been striving to
articulate with varying degrees of success.

How do we choose between them? - e.g. if we are going to use {djuno},
which meaning will we intend it to have? Do we just ask Lojbab to
pronounce on the matter, and do our best to understand what his
pronouncements mean, and just swallow and accept it if they turn out
to be incoherent, or do we actually deliberate the issue, looking
at the intrinsic sensicality of the candidate meanings, and their
relationship to the meanings of other Lojban vocables?

> .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?

It's hard to cite without there being a reasonably comprehensive
corpus. There has, though, been enough usage for one to get a sense
of how people use certain words and grammatical features.

--And.