Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Goran:
> I also like the that in lojban one can control what he says, and
> how much he says. You don't want to make number explicit? OK, number is
> optional. You don't want to decide when has something happened, if it
> even has yet? No problem, tense is optional, too. Also, if I want to
> include my judgement about the truth in other people's convictions, I
> can always tanru it with mibyseltu'i or jetnu (with implied "tu'a mi" in
> x3) or whatever. Again, since this is a constructed language, we can fix
> whatever we like as meaning of specific words (did you read "The Meaning
> of Liff"?),

You are starting to write like pc ;-)

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 (mainly) for the reasons stated above I like and's
> definition, the one I believe lojbab. basically agrees with, even if it
> does significantly differ from English usage (as well as that of any
> other natural language I know).

I wish I knew which definition you meant.

--And.