[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > 1. Djuno is factive: truth of x2 is presupposed; x2 remains true even > > if djuno is negated. > > > > 2. x2 is claimed to be true. X djuno Y only if Y is true. Negated djuno > > makes no claim or presupposition about truth of x2. > > > > 3. Truth of x2 is immaterial to djuno; X can know Y even if Y is false. > > > > There was a pretty strong (though perhaps not universal) consensus > > on (2), strong enough for the matter to appear settled at the time. > > > > If John has just talked about "the factivity of djuno", I'm pretty > > sure he was speaking loosely, and in fact referring to (2), not to > > (1). > > I can live with either (1) or (2), so (2) it is. So you're putting a "valid according to speaker" limitation on the djuno4 when the speaker is discussing a third-party's "knowing"? -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();