Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 10:47:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801021547.KAA01676@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: Re: Knowledge and Belief X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Steven Belknap "Re: Knowledge and Belief" (Jan 1, 3:17pm) Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1613 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan 2 10:47:55 1998 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU la stivn. cusku di'e > The combination of first order predicate logic and an > epistemologically oriented bridi like seems to > me to be rather too rigid to justify such a statement as: > > bolci> la markl. spuda la stivn. di'e Why do you insert the terminator {ku}? Isn't it conventional for {ku} to be elided, or left implicit, before {cu} & also before a tense or aspect marker like {ba'o} or {mo'u}? > Maybe the catcher had a massive stroke shortly after catching > the ball, and thus knows nothing at all. That would not affect the truth of my sentence, in which {djuno} was unmarked for tense. Also, pragmatically speaking, if a humdrum event is followed closely in time by a catastrophic event, we expect witnesses to mention the catastrophic event in their reports, even if the humdrum event is central to their concerns. Since I was our hypothetical witness in this case, & I made no mention of a massive stroke, why would you think that there was one? > It seems to me that one must either fuzzify with , > specify the epistemology or method by which certain knowledge > is claimed, or use a bridi which reports "Just the facts, M'am." The epistemology place of {djuno} is the x4 place, no? Is it so unusual for the x4 sumti of a bridi to be left unspecified? I *could've* specified x4, or used {jei}, or used an evidential to insert my acts of observation & inference between the bridi & your radical skepticism concerning its truth value. But I don't comprehend why you say that we "must" do some such thing.