Date:  Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:15:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801090115.UAA15472@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: knowledge and belief
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2537
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan  8 20:15:26 1998
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>>                    la lojbab jinvi le du'u la djan klama le zarci
>>                    Lojbab thinks that John goes to the market.
>>
>>How do you determine whether that is true or not?
>
>This use of <jinvi> implies a 3rd person omniscient author,
>which is common in novels.

We do have a radically different understanding of language then,
if you think that only an omniscient author could say that sentence.


 >You've lost me. I don't see what the difference is between "judging
whether
>the <djuno> statement is true" and "a criteria by which the x2 of <djuno>
>is true".

Well, suppose that 1+1=2 is true by epistemology X.

Then the following statement is a reasonable thing to say:

        la djan na djuno le du'u li re sumji li pa li pa kei fo xy
        It is not the case that John knows that 1+1=2 by X.

Here it is clear that X is the epistemology by which we judge the
truth of "1=1+2". Not the epistemology by which we judge whether
John knows something.

For that sentence to make sense, it must be true that 1+1=2 by X,
even if John doesn't know it.


 >>><la xorxes djuno le du'u la stivn djuno le du'u makau cmene la xorxes
kei
>>>fo le nu xorxes viska>
>>>"Jorge knows that Steven knows Jorge's name because Jorge has seen (it)."
>>
>>You need an additional kei, otherwise the epistemology is for your
>>knowledge rather than for mine.
>
>This was intentional. Is it wrong?

Well, how can my having seen anything be a reason for you to know
my name.


>>    le du'u la stivn djuno le du'u makau cmene la xorxes cu jetnu le nu la
>>xorxes viska
>>    That Steven knows Jorge's name is true because Jorge has seen it.
>>
>>   le du'u la santas cu zasti cu jetnu le nu mi cusku
>>   That Santa exists is true because I said it.
>>
>>If those don't work as epistemologies for {jetnu}, why should they work
>>as epistemologies for {djuno}?
>
>Maybe they do. If the x4 place of <djuno> can be <le nu viska>, then I see
>no reason that the x2 place of <jetnu> can't be <le nu viska>

Here we agree. Either they work for both or they don't for any of the two.

>But it is not
>clear to me how <djuno> differs from <krici>.

{djuno} requires the x2 to be true. {krici} doesn't.

This one makes sense:

        la djan na klama le zarci i ku'i la lojbab krici le du'u ja'a go'i
        John didn't go to the market, but lojbab believes he did.

This one doesn't:

        la djan na klama le zarci i ku'i la lojbab djuno le du'u ja'a go'i
        John didn't go to the market, but lojbab knows he did.

co'o mi'e xorxes