From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 28 10:47:29 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:47:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FOJDk-0008VI-8W for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:47:12 -0800 Received: from web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.124]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FOJDi-0008VB-B3 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:47:12 -0800 Received: (qmail 41438 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Mar 2006 18:47:09 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=yDix/+Fu0edUIMNxq/bWAppmFX8NvjQk91z8Lb3vg8OEZsPAfwL8mdLCexqBGHtkdcv+XPfxETCEGOtcH7yXqKmvQcMXmdEgQ0juh2daK30JMBcDlmz1LHEKKai4PhUF8YUjlJQSdNEoFcWOW2sY9gk61rutcEpACNaKgnJzGBk= ; Message-ID: <20060328184709.41436.qmail@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:47:09 PST Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:47:09 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes can define anything To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560603280849s4dbf8c6anb5147083bcbe72ba@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11272 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list It is difficult enough to figure out what justification might be, let alone formulating that in terms of the other primes (many attempts do involve KNOW, by the way). --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/28/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > > > > I wonder how NSM paraphrases "X believes Y" > > > (perhaps > > > "X thinks that Y is true"?) and once it > gets > > > that, why it can't > > > also get a suitable paraphrase for KNOW > > > (something like > > > "Y is true and X thinks that Y is true" and > > > probably a couple > > > more things?). > > > > Historically, it has been those couple more > > things, usually summed up as "X is justified > in > > this belief," that have been the hard part > (no > > one has a generally accepted version that can > be > > made to work in practice). > > But presumably "is justified in" can also be > paraphrased, > and unless the paraphrase involves KNOW (which > is not clear > that it should, probably something involving > IF's and "PEOPLE > would THINK"s), then KNOW should be > paraphrasable too. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.