Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:39:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801110139.UAA07285@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: knowledge and belief X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: e60ceca34ba3d9b29d86be48bfa5fa68 Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 893 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 12 15:51:04 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. >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". >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? co'o mi'e xorxes