Date:  Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:26:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801102326.SAA04009@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      knowledge and belief
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: 5fccfef997442a6e7a12ba8a6c4ec525
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1196
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 12 15:50:17 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

Those who know me are aware that I am a fuzzy guy. So when I say:

<.i mi djuno le du'u la xorxes kau pu porpi le rulja'o>
"I know that it was Jorge who broke the vase."

those who know me know that what I mean is:

<.i mi ja'a pa djuno le du'u la xorxes kau porpi le rulja'o>
"I fuzzily know that it was Jorge who broke the vase."

If I wished to express some fuzzy uncertainty, I might say:

<.i mi ja'a mufi'uze djuno le du'u la xorxes kau porpi le rulja'o>
"I, to fuzzy extent 5 on a 0 to 7 scale, know that Jorges broke the vase."

Perhaps if I was on a jury, I might say:

<.i mi ja'a pa djuno le du'u la xorxes kau porpi le rulja'o kei fo racli senpi>
"I fuzzily know beyond a reasonable doubt that Jorges broke the vase."

Given some comments made during this discussion about <djuno>, perhaps
other persons are also speaking fuzzily when they say <.i mi djuno le du'u
makau pu porpi le rulja'o>. Perhaps <racli senpi> would be the epistemology
or schema the legally-minded implicitly use when they elide the x4 sumti of
<djuno>.

co'o mi'e la fudjistivn

Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria