Date:  Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:31:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801060431.XAA12510@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: knowledge and belief
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199801030627.BAA03259@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Steven
              Belknap on Sat, 3 Jan 1998 00:28:31 -0600)
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 958
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan  5 23:31:43 1998
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>Date:         Sat, 3 Jan 1998 00:28:31 -0600
>From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
>
>>>At 1997-12-31 09:13, Steven Belknap wrote:
>>>
>>>><la stivn djuno le du'u la xorxes djuno le du'u la lojbab klama le zarci
>>>>kei fo da>
>>>>
>>>>"Steven knows that Jorge knows that Lojbab goes to the store."
>>>>
>>>>The above statement is always false, which considerably limits its utility.
>>>>I am asserting that it is not possible to directly know that some else
>>>>knows something.

Just to muddy the waters further, how does this play with those indirect
questions that have been making so many heads spin?  What about "Steven
knows that Jorge knows who went to the store"?  You can't replace the second
"knows" with "believes" or "opines", even in Lojban, can you?  The first
maybe.  Does {mi krici ledu'u makau klama le zarci} make any sense in
Lojban, as a "less certain" form of {mi djuno ledu'u makau klama le zarci}
as the claim seems to be?

~mark