Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

Someone wrote:
>> The important point to note that it is not possible for the expressor to
 change
>>  the metaphysics of a simple statement.

And and asked:
>Could it be done with a BAI?

the case tag would be "fi'o selje'u", right?  Isn't it true that there's always
an implied "fi'o selje'u zo'e" in every sentence: "with-metaphysics
 the-obvious"?

But now I'm confused about something.  Suppose I say:

   la selbarna cu mlatu fi'o selje'u my.
   Spot is a cat under metaphysics M

Couldn't some clever wag ask "Under what metaphysics is it true that
(Spot is a cat under metaphysics M)?"  And isn't it that latter metaphysics
that's *really* what we think governs the speaker's claim that the object of
"know"is true for the speaker? Because, after all, the sentence:

        la .and. djuno ledu'u sy. maltu fi'o selje'u my.
            And "djuno" (that Spot is a cat under metaphysics M)

doesn't imply that the speaker uses M to know that Spot is a
cat; nor by Jorge's version of "djuno" does it imply the speaker thinks Spot
is a cat -- in fact, I'm not sure it even implies that And believes Spot is a
 cat!

Hmmm, am I right about that?  I had thought that  "Proposition BAI sumti"
always entailed "Proposition", but now I'm not so sure...

Chris