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

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 3/28/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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).

But presumably "is justified in" can also be paraphrased,
and unless the paraphrase involves KNOW (which is not clear
that it should, probably something involving IF's and "PEOPLE
would THINK"s), then KNOW should be paraphrasable too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes