Re: Truth-ambiguous djuno [was Re: Summary so far on DJUNO]

["Erik W. Cornilsen" <thanatos@DIMENSIONAL.COM>]

For those of you who are concerned with what makes a statement true in
lojban, the "truth-free" version of djuno (not that I'm proposing that
it become *the* definition, or anything of the sort) would be true if x1
did not futz-up and produce an x2 which is not entailed by x4.

P.S.  The passage of time is also a problem with applying logic to
real-world situations.  The truth-less djuno doesn't suffer from
discovering at some later date that the epistemology was flawed, as it
isn't a requirement that the statement x2 be true in the first place.
You can still say that the Ancient Greeks knew things by their
epistemologies which modern epistemologies claim to be false.

P.P.S.  You could still add truth if you wanted. "la djan. djuno le
jetydu'u ..." (I'm attempting to say true-statement), which would
indicate that the speaker is asserting that x2 is true, or "jifydu'u"
for falsity.  "la djan. kricydjuno le du'u ...", would indicate that
John believes x2 to be true.  (Perhaps krici isn't the best choice for
that, as it indicates no proof, but that may fit for some
epistemologies).  Other truth-relating words could also be used to
express the x1's relations to the truth of x2, jinvi, krici, senpi,
smadi, and sruma, for example.

P.P.P.S.  I'm frightened that my spell checker wanted to replace "krici"
with "Kirk."

--
Erik W. Cornilsen
thanatos@dimensional.com