Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> (there
>> being no place for the speaker in the (default - non BAId) place structure,
>
>Agreed. The same goes for all the gismu. Noone has proposed that
>{djuno} needs a place for the speaker. In fact, even if the speaker
>were a participant in the gismu meaning it would be pointless to
>--More--
>have a sumti place for the speaker, because the speaker is
>identifiable from the context.

Not always.  In any event, I do not thonk that the truth of a djuno
proposition should depend on the speaker.  It is at least as jsutifiable that
the truth of adjuno proposition should depend on the listener/reader.
But I feel that only the person identified in the sentence, le djuno, should
be relevant.

>Having said this, though, I confess that I find it hard to understand
>{jetnu}, given that its x2 is defined as "by
>standard/epistemology/metaphysics". I can imagine what might it might
>mean if x2 were for epistemology only (this makes the most sense to
>me; and your comments would make more sense too), or if x2 were just
>for metaphysics (this might be like {se nibli}).


The x2 recognizes that truths are subjective.  They may be observer based
in which case epistemology is the x2 and jetnu becomes akin to djuno.
They may be metaphsycially based (but observer independent within a fgiven
metaphysics) in which case the metaphysics goes into x2.  They may be based on
 some fuzzy definition, in which case some minimum level of fuzzy truth may
be required to call a statement jetnu, and that standard would then go in x2.

>> The problem is that if one accpets subjectivity as possible
>> then it necessarily becomes a default because you cannot assume that
>> anyone else will necessarily hold the same truths/accept the same
>> epistemologies as you.
>
>Jorge has already addressed this. I realize that you are deliberately
>trying to put forward a postmodern position, but that just means you
>are talking out of postmodernism's collective arse.

Perhaps, but postmodernists use the language too %^)

>I know you hold
>linguistics in very low esteem, but the fact that linguistics has
>never had anything but the utmost derision and contempt for
>postmodernism might nonetheless be taken as suggestive.

And vice versa %^)

The fact that language is indeed used by postmodernists and must be usable by
 postmodernists means that Lojban's design has to accomodate them.

lojbab