Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o

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

> Some people seem to be saying that a usage of "fact" with "the sky is red"
> is inherently ironical.  But English usage should not necessarily dictate
> Lojban usage in any case.  Thus knowing how the Chinese equivalent is used
> is important.

Indeedly we never say that "the fact is the sky is red" in our daily
life, but I believe "fact" is not strickly defined in Chinese. However,
people always feel strange when you say (or even assume) the sky is red.
And a well-educated person (usually students) can accept all things.

I'd have to explain this clearlier.

"Fact" isn't strickly defined in Chinese. And in daily Chinese, we use
this word to strengthen the attitude. As two people debating, some
typical sentences are observed, as:     (of course in Chinese..)

A: Tom HAS stolen Karen's ring! I've heard that by her!
B: But the FACT is: he has NOT! Because.........

However, when they're debating something, mmm.... about religious or
uncertain, the word is even used, esp. when someone believes in some
other thing, as:

A: I said, how can you know Jesus (Buddha, Alah... etc.) exists?
B: However the FACT is: He exists!

So we can sometimes hear Christians say "I know the God exists."

When talking to "the sky is red", not everyone can accept it. If he can
accept it to be an assumption, he can accept it to be a "fact" (since
another one believes, assumes, considers, suggests, ... it can be a
"fact" to be "known".)

Is it clear? However, I support that we can talk about a "fact" that is
assumed to be true, or about something unknown.


.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.     ==> Please support the logical language.
.co'o mi'e lindjy,min.          ==> Goodbye, I'm Lin Zhe Min.