Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Goran Topic <amadan@USA.NET>]

> > I also like the that in lojban one can control what he says, and
> > how much he says. You don't want to make number explicit? OK, number is
> > optional. You don't want to decide when has something happened, if it
> > even has yet? No problem, tense is optional, too. Also, if I want to
> > include my judgement about the truth in other people's convictions, I
> > can always tanru it with mibyseltu'i or jetnu (with implied "tu'a mi" in
> > x3) or whatever. Again, since this is a constructed language, we can fix
> > whatever we like as meaning of specific words (did you read "The Meaning
> > of Liff"?),
>
> You are starting to write like pc ;-)

!??

If you think I started to make longish posts, well, yeah, but there are
people here even more verbose than either of us. Or, maybe it could
be... <fzzzt>

I think I'll just stop now and accept it as a compliment. :)

> I don't really think that your point is relevant to the issue about
> {djuno}. Even if the true-x2 meaning were given to {djuno}, a lujvo
> could be created to be the same except for the x2's truth being
> unspecified. And vice versa.

I don't know. I somehow feel that it is much easier and much more
natural to add meaning components rather than remove them. The former
can be done in lojban in a myriad of ways. The only way of which I am
aware for doing the latter is zi'o, and I feel a bit weird using it (not
that I do, but on the rare (or even hypothetical?) occasions I did, I'd
feel a bit weird) - it's like saying, this is a travel route which has
nothing to do with travelling whatsoever, or this is a species of a dog,
but it is not possible, or even conceivable, that there could be
something we would classify as such (indeed, there is nothing to
classify, as that species is not used for classification at all)... Does
this make any sense? Or even in contexts where it fits much better than
in these examples, it still feels weird, because it forces you to forget
something already expressed, without acknowledging it as an error (as
would be the case if si/sa/su were used).

> > but (mainly) for the reasons stated above I like and's
> > definition, the one I believe lojbab. basically agrees with, even if it
> > does significantly differ from English usage (as well as that of any
> > other natural language I know).
>
> I wish I knew which definition you meant.

The one pretty much like extended birti...

x1 is convinced of x2 about x3 by (epistemology, arguments, metaphysics,
whatever, my memory fails me, my mailbox gone with the wind...) x4

co'o mi'e. goran.