Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

>>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.
>
>But the true-x2 meaning could not be given to djuno without adding a
>metaphysics place, which is not possible.

Why is it not possible? How come there are several gismu that
talk about truth and don't have a metaphysics place? (xusra, jinvi,
kanxe, and many others.)

If I say:

(1)            le du'u ti mlatu cu jetnu ko'a enai ko'e
                 "That this is a cat is true by metaphysics A
                 but not by metaphysics B."

Am I asserting {ti mlatu}? Consider:

                 mi xusra le du'u ti mlatu
                 I assert that "this is a cat" is true.

Am I asserting that it is true by metaphysics A, B, some other?
If you can't talk about truth without forcing in a metaphysics place
then lots of gismu are not possible. How about kanxe: "x1 is a
conjunction stating that x2 and x3 are both true". True by what
metaphysics? Is that gismu possible?

co'o mi'e xorxes.