Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:50:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801210050.TAA29013@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: f8d24e2cb0d0236b2e30235070f575d9 Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 919 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 21 09:50:36 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - cu'u la ~mark >I'm pretty much with you on that, though here's an interesting >counterexample I heard on TV just the other day and made a note of: > >Some scientist was saying, on a science program, "Consider the 1920's. >Scientists knew -- they KNEW -- that universe was just the milky way >galaxy." > >This is a use of perhaps another meaning of "know" in English, a slightly >different one, more in line with Steve Belknap: to be completely >convinced. Used for effect here, since it's being falsified. I don't know whether I would call it another meaning of "know". As you say, it is being used for effect. I can imagine the scientist just as well saying something like: "Consider the 1920's. Back then the universe WAS just the milky way galaxy." Would you say that that is another meaning of "be", or is it just a way of saying something by making a claim that doesn't literally mean that? co'o mi'e xorxes