Re: [jboske] factivity of djuno (was: RE: Gaps and Ungaps

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote:

> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > 1. Djuno is factive: truth of x2 is presupposed; x2 remains true even
> > if djuno is negated.
> >
> > 2. x2 is claimed to be true. X djuno Y only if Y is true. Negated djuno
> > makes no claim or presupposition about truth of x2.
> >
> > 3. Truth of x2 is immaterial to djuno; X can know Y even if Y is false.
> >
> > There was a pretty strong (though perhaps not universal) consensus
> > on (2), strong enough for the matter to appear settled at the time.
> >
> > If John has just talked about "the factivity of djuno", I'm pretty
> > sure he was speaking loosely, and in fact referring to (2), not to
> > (1).
>
> I can live with either (1) or (2), so (2) it is.



So you're putting a "valid according to speaker" limitation on the djuno4
when the speaker is discussing a third-party's "knowing"?



-- 
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();