Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:14:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802190414.XAA19677@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:02:20 -0300 Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: more epistemic perversity X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: b41fd57dc434dcdeaf11eb40eac78d65 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 19 12:23:25 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Rob: >Both you and And seem to want to use English prescription of usage >of the word "know" to prescribe the usage of the Lojban "djuno", that >seems utterly ridiculous. Since when would a prescription for an English >gloss prescribe the use of a foreign language word? Sorry I gave that impression. What I tried to say is this: (1) English "know" has presupposition of truth. (2) {djuno} is glossed as "x1 knows x2 about x3 by epistemology x4". (3) Neither the gloss nor the (irrelevant to Lojbab) usage seen up to now suggest that {djuno} does not share property (1) with English, and I don't see the point of denying it such property. A lot of the discussion with Lojbab has been about (1) rather than about (3). Obviously we can't argue (3) if we disagree about (1). I certainly agree with you that it is not in general true that words in two languages are perfect matches. That does not mean that {djuno} cannot have presupposition of truth like English "knows", Spanish "saber", French "savoir", etc. co'o mi'e xorxes.