Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o

[Lin Zhe Min <ljm@LJM.WOWNET.NET>]

On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Logical Language Group wrote:

> mi djuno so'eda la lojban
> I know many facts about Lojban.

So my demonstration of "mi na djuno la lojban." and "Ah, It's a ...."
is right?

I think the word 'fact' doesn't assume the particular event to be true,
isn't it? If a group of people (assumed they're living on an isolated
island and do not know nothing outside) consider the sky is red, we say
that is a fact (to them) that the sky is red (in English).

Is this what you're debating about?

> My wife says that djuno is savoir in French, most closely.

Yeah. According to your definition, it is purely 'savoir', and 'zhidao'
in Chinese. (However, the usage of "zhidao" is indeedly different from
its French or English counterparts.)

> The debate going on here is whether you can "know" something that
> is not true, or more specifically, can  you say that Ken Shan knows something
> when you know it to be false (Ken, by whatever means he uses to determine
> truth, does not agree with you and considers it true).  It would be
> intersting to know if zhidao or zhi alone can be used with false propositions.

I cannot understand you exactly... Can English speakers use 'know' in this
way? However, we don't use zhidao in every phrases.
A traditional (i.e. young guys don't use this) usage is:

[there is a terrible car accident. Bill is dead after it took part.]
Bill's girl friend: I know he's not dead! I know he's not dead!

(Most in exaggerate operas, but 'zhidao' here means that his girl friend
cannot accept the fact. However, there is no English counterpart in the
situation, I believe. Here, 'zhidao' doesn't mean 'know', nor 'believe',
neither 'I cannot accept that'... It is here a cultural dependent word.)

I can say (mm... whether in Chinese and in English, eh?)
        The earth IS square. There ARE four columns in each corner.
        And the water FLOWS from the sky, to the rivers, and to the seas,
        and then, it FALLS in the edges of the earth. China IS in the
        central of the world. North to it, there IS endlessly mountaineous.
        And south to it, there ARE endlessly bushes and trees.

(from some ancient Chinese stories. Even nowadays, there are people
 living in isolate places believe in the stories.)

And we can make a dialogue as:

K: I know that the earth is square.
L: No, it is round.
K: It cannot be round! If it is round, there will be no columns in
   each corner. And there ARE four columns in each corner.
L: There is no columns.
K: Impossible, there IS! Don't you know that in the ancient books,
   our forefathers said the earth IS square?

It's okay to Chinese people (a bit comic and laughter... though.)
to replace every 'know' to 'zhidao'. However, zhidao is not usually used
in such phrases. It sounds that you have strong will to tell other people
that you know this.

Philosophically speaking, we cannot know something that is 'observed'
TRUE. And even the logical algorithms are right, there are basical
assumptions. Isn't it?

> merko refers to the United States, much to the objection of Jorge.  One bit

Oh. Notably there are communists in the U.S. feel sorry and shy to use
"American" to indicate people who have U.S. nationalities. If you defined
"merko" to someone who lives/has the nationality of the U.S., you must
write it clearly. [merko] means mei3 guo2 ren2 in Chinese, pretty
suitable. Because we seldom use mei3 zhou1 ren2 (people who live/born in
the continent America) in Chinese.

.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.     ==> =P$d+yE^?h;y(%!C
.co'o mi'e lindjy,min.          ==> &A(#!A'Z,O*L-u%A!C