Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:41:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802182041.PAA21194@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@rattlesnake.com Subject: Re: more epistemic perversity X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980217093943.037c2a10@atlas> (message from Rob Zook on Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:39:43 -0600) X-UIDL: 7af338cc58659710be00130a78598c17 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 18 16:08:02 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - rzook@informix.com wrote: If I were actually translating that for some one else I might say "John believes I have only one child because he had a dream". In English one does not use the word "know" when one regards the belief involved as false ... Right! In Lojban you could use {djuno} along with John's espistemology, as you did in your example. And when you spoke for yourself on the same topic, you could use {krici}, thereby suggesting that you do not use the same epistemology as John. ... you can use it [djuno] that way regardless of whether or not you agree that x2 is true for you. Using djuno one can make a report of someones claim of knowing something without any hidden judgement of it's truth or justification. Yes! Nicely put. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com