Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 12:12:11AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> 
> la camgusmis cusku di'e
> 
> >  djuno jun     ju'o know
> >                     x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by
> >                     epistemology x4
> >
> >Now, since this is, as far as I am aware, the only official
> >definition, we need to use and english dictionary for 'knows':
> 
> Not really, but consulting dictionaries can certainly help sometimes.

[unrelated portions of definition snipped]

> >2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of: be convinced or
> >certain of
> 
> Yes, this one is Lojban {djuno}.

That ':' is an indication of equivalence in dictionaries as far as I am
aware.  BTW, from OED:

  10 a To apprehend or comprehend as fact or truth; to have a clear or distinct
perception or apprehension of; to understand or comprehend with clearness and
feeling of certainty.  Formerly, sometimes, +to get to understand, to find out
by reasoning.
  When the feeling of certainty is emphasized, know is often contrasted with
believe.
 
Once again, if djuno means knowing as contrasted to believing, it's using only
a subset of the English meaning, and this should be specified.

> >The only place where truth is discussed is 2a, where _Webster's_, for
> >crying out loud, states that "to be aware of the truth or factuality
> >of" _is_ _equivalent_ _to_ "be convinced or certain of".
> 
> Dictionaries don't work like that, it doesn't state that they are
> equivalent. 

What does that ':' mean to you, then?

That's certainly the meaning that that sort of construct normally has
in a dictionary:

> We know that they are not equivalent because "John is absloutely
> convinced that Robin lives in Australia" works where "John knows that
> Robin lives in Australia" doesn't.

Once again, it works just fine for me.  It would be likely to provoke
the response "But Robin _doesn't_ live in Australia", but that just
makes the knowledge inaccurate; it's no less knowledge for being wrong.

> >.o'onai
> >
> >If y'all are going to insist that djuno makes a distinction between "to be
> >aware of the truth or factuality of" and "be convinced or certain of",
> >you're going to need to rewrite the definiton, because that is _not_
> >what the current definition says.
> 
> Actually Lojbab argued more or less what you are arguing the
> last time this was discussed. Who knows, maybe Lojban usage will
> depart from English usage in this regard and settle on your
> preferred definition.

Except that that _IS_ the English usage, at least the English I speak.
Out of curiosity, which English do you speak (British, American, ESL,
etc)?  I'm a native NA English speaker.

I have checked, by the way, with both my roommates, both also native NA
English speakers, and they agree that English is truth-agnostic, i.e.
that the fact that I know something has nothing to do with its objective
truth.  The had no problem with the sentence "I know Dave lives in
Australia", even if that is in fact not true, and agreed that the
_truth_ of the statement has nothing to do with the _validity_ (semantic
or syntactic) of the statement.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
Information wants to be free.  Too bad most of it is crap.  --RLP