Re: zo djuno ce zo jetyju'o

[Carl Burke <cburke@MITRE.ORG>]

At 05:59 PM 2/24/98 GMT+0, you wrote:
...
>> Perhaps it would help if you could repost this so-called "clearly
>> articulated" view of djuno? I remember no such animal.
>
>Presumably you have just been skimming the thread, which is what I
>often do when I'm not actively participating.

Same as I'm doing...

>The view I was referring to is that the meaning is:
>
>   x2 is true about x3 and epistemology x4 convinces x1 that x2 is true
>      about x3

So long as the 'standard' x4, when elided, is the experience of the
individual being credited with 'knowing' x2 about x3.  In that case
I can buy this definition.  Where we tend to run into trouble (IMHO)
is when we assume that all the cognitive models of all the people
involved are going to agree, or if we assume that x2 is an absolute
objectively true fact about x3; neither of those assumptions can
safely be assumed to hold in general.

(If it seems like I'm spouting bullshit here, just ignore me; I've
been reading Lakoff lately, so that viewpoint is still sinking in.)

--
Carl Burke
cburke@mitre.org