Re: [lojban] Re: semantic primes can define anything

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/28/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > So the difference between {krici} and {jinvi}
> is
> > the evidence place?
> 
> As far as I can tell, that's the only
> difference, yes.
> 
> >  Having the opinion is not
> > extramental but to be an opinion it must
> involve
> > reference to an extramental situation
> (except, of
> > course, opinions about mental situations).
> 
> If you except the cases when it need not, then
> yes, it must. :)

Well, those aren't really exception to the
general idea, they are just thrown in because
that idea got expressed as "extramental."
 
> > > {pensi} lacks the belief component of
> {jinvi},
> > > so you would need some other way to get
> that in, either
> > > {jinvi} or {krici} or something else.
> >
> > The belief component is what I called
> > affirmation, I think.  Yes, that has to be
> added,
> > like the truth component to get {djuno} --
> > actually that requires both.
> 
> I wonder how NSM paraphrases "X believes Y"
> (perhaps
> "X thinks that Y is true"?) and once it gets
> that, why it can't
> also get a suitable paraphrase for KNOW
> (something like
> "Y is true and X thinks that Y is true" and
> probably a couple
> more things?).

Historically, it has been those couple more
things, usually summed up as "X is justified in
this belief," that have been the hard part (no
one has a generally accepted version that can be
made to work in practice).