Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:45:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802021645.LAA04661@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Robin Turner Sender: Lojban list From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: knowledge X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: c6b84ac65c75fca69f0aeab5c96dc80d X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 02 14:43:58 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - I see prototypes rearing their ugly heads again! The counterexamples given to the argument that use of "know" implies the truth of that which is "known" seem pretty peripheral examples of the category. If you asked a native English speaker for a "good" example of the use of "know", he/she would almost certainly choose an example where the truth of the thing known was accepted by all concerned. There are even more peripheral examples, such as "Man, know thyself" or even "And Abraham knew his wife" but these don't seem to bother anyone. I propose, however, that even prototype categories have boundaries beyond which use of the word is obviously metaphorical, ironic or technical, and the truth of the thing known seems to mark the boundary here. The same may well apply to the equivalent of "know" in other languages, though the boundaries may be more (or less) fuzzy than in English. For example, prototypical use of Turkish "bilmek" corresponds to English know, but the peripheral uses often do not. For example, like many languages, Turkish has a different verb for "know" in the sense of "be aquainted with" ("tanImak"), and it is also possible to say "Yalnis' bildim" - "I knew wrongly", which would be extremely unlikely in English. Robin Turner Bilkent Universitesi, IDMYO, Ankara, Turkey.