Date:  Mon, 5 Jan 1998 03:04:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801050804.DAA01320@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: knowledge and belief
X-To:         sbelknap@UIC.EDU
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 909
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan  5 03:04:12 1998
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>I am currently of the opinion that the lojban word <djuno>
>could not reasonably be used in a sentence such as
>
><la stivn djuno le du'u la xorxes djuno le du'u la lojbab klama le zarci
>kei fo da>
>
>"Steven knows (under epistemology ?) that Jorge knows (under epistemology
>X)  that Lojbab went to the store."

Since "authority" is a common epistemology for most people (I don't check
every fact described in my textbooks or reference works), it is fairly
easy to insert "authority"-based epistemologues in each of the x4s of
the respective djuno bridi.  Steven knows by epistemology of Jorge's
authority and claim as to his own knowledge, which in turn may be due to
having heard on Lojbab's authoirty about L's going to the store, or perhaps
even by direct observation, if Jorge accompanied Lojbab.

There is nothing about djuno that prevents expressing these kinds of
knowledge with that word.

lojbab