Date:  Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:16:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801110516.AAA13759@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: knowledge and belief
X-To:         "=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas=22?="
              <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <U16081.884460744@UICVM>
X-UIDL: bc01e862f840a85a84818e7b67eaba31
Status: RO
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2269
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 12 15:53:09 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

>la stivn cusku di'e
>><.i mi djuno le du'u la xorxes kau pu porpi le rulja'o>
>>"I know that it was Jorge who broke the vase."
>I think you mean {porpygau}. Otherwise you're saying
>that I broke into a vase.

Yes, you're right. <porpi> is not agentive. So its:

<.i mi djuno le du'u la xorxes kau pu porpi gasnu le rulja'o>

>>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."
>
>That should be {ja'a xi pa}. Otherwise {pa djuno} is the sumti
>"one knower".

Got it. ja'a uses a subscript. I guess I could use <xoi> instead of <ja'a
xi>, but that's an experimental cmavo, and not part of the official
grammer. So its:

<.i mi ja'a xipa djuno le du'u la xorxes kau porpi gasnu le rulja'o>

> >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."
>
>You need a sumti after {fo}. If events can be epistemologies, then that
>would be {le nu racli senpi}.
>But wouldn't it be better to know by {le nu racli birti} = "being
>rationally certain", rather than by >rationally doubting?

Hmm. I don't think <le nu racli birti> is quite right, as I am trying to
translate "beyond a reasonable doubt", the standard of American
jurisprudence in a criminal trial. The question the jury must answer is,
"Is there a reasonable doubt?" and not "Is there reasonable certainty?"
Thus, if there were both reasonable doubt and reasonable certainty, Jorge
goes free. Also, you are right that I need an abstractor, but <nu> doesn't
seem right, as "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not an event. It seems to me
that "beyond a reasonable doubt" implies that the evidence is being weighed
on a scale (the scales of justice), and found to surpass a threshold, which
seems rather like a numerical quantity:

<.i mi ja'a xipa djuno le du'u la xorxes kau porpi gasnu le rulja'o kei fo
le za'u ni racli senpi>
"I know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Jorge who broke the vase."

>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