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

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

It is difficult enough to figure out what
justification might be, let alone formulating
that in terms of the other primes (many attempts
do involve KNOW, by the way). 


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

> 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.