Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 03:39:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801280839.DAA15965@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: knowledge, lojban and English X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 1800edf4e949263ebfe01b16a2ed7426 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 28 09:41:23 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >I agree with that too. > >In the case of {djuno}, if it is to mean something drastically different >from "know" then the definition should be more explicit. For instance, >if the presupposition of truth were to be removed, we should know >what difference would remain between {djuno} and {jinvi}. Would they >become near synonyms? Maybe the hangup I am having is with this word "presupposition" If you means omething like the "default" as in default quantifier then it is iffy. The problem with presuppositions is that they have to have a presupposer, and we seem to be arguing about who the presupposer is. If the presupposer = the knower x1 of djuno, then I can agree with you and the issue can be settled. This does preserve a difference with jinvi, because in general when people state that something is their opinion, they are recognizing that it is subjective and LIKELY not universally agreed to be true. In general when someone claims to know something they are indeed assuming that what they know is "true". But where the issue arises between us is what happens when the person stating a djuno claim is not the "knower", and while he recognizes that le djuno is presupposing truth, the speaker does not presuppose that truth and is either agnostic, or even disagrees with that presupposition. You are correct that in English we OFTEN don't use "know" for such cases, but instead use one of the softer words that imply non-truth from the speaker's point of view, including "consider" and "opine and "think" and "believe". But for defining the Lojban word, we have a tough problem - each of those words is used in the definition of another gismu and is more likely to be trnaslted using those orther gismu. "know" does work if you set up sufficient context; the other would require wordy comparisons betweent he gismu of the sort that we did not want to put into the gismu list - there certainly has been discussion before about putting together a treatise on gismu meanings that compares and contrasts the gismu, but there was NO intent to have the baseline definitions be so carefully refined as to make such discussion unnecessary. Indeed, unless we have Robin pointing out the nuances of Turkish semantic implications in their word for djuno/know, and similar comments from Chinese and other languages, this discussion is hinging too much on the English semantics, when we have stated that it is circumstance that has us stating the Lojban baseline in English, and the English semantics is NOT intended to be transferred at a fine level. I suspect that if the typical Lojbanist used djuno where he would use English "know" and "jinvi" where he would use "opinion", that there seldome would be a problem, BUT That this would not resolve the issue we have been debating because I think too seldom does the nuance that I am pointing out come into play in the English such that we notice it. (There may be times wherte it comes into play but that there is no way to tell for sure who is doing the presupposing of what). The key point here is that djuno and the common meaning of "know" differ most significantly when there is a subjective basis for truth and the speaker does not agree with the knower, OR takes note of the subjectivity and (in English at least) chooses a different word. In Lojban there is no need to choose a different word from djuno, because the epistemology can be described as subjective failrly easily. English "know" does not have a required or even implied statement of epistemology, and indeed to bring in eopistemology requires wordiness or vagueness as to what exactly you are bringing in (e.g. "because" - which usually not a lead-in to epistemology in English, but might be for "know"). lojbab