Subject: Re: [lojban] notes on conventional implicature (was Re: tu'o usage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:51:00 EDT

In a message dated 9/23/2002 8:16:36 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> For example, in English the object of
> "know" is conventionally-implicated to be true: "She didn't know he
> was bald" still implicates that "he was bald", but in Lojban it doesn't.
>>
This case is controversial, of course, and the correct answer is hard to find 
because 1) English does not have a {na'i} but occasionally at least uses 
"no[t]" for it 
2) English "know" is ambiguous between "is really really sure that" and a 
similar notion with requirements on how one comes to that sate, roughly "is 
justified in being really sure that." English speakers move back and forth 
between these two unconsciously until a hard case comes along. 
3) The evidence is indecisive: what is the proper response is to discovering 
that something one knew turns out to be false. ne response is "Gee, I 
thought I knew it but I guess I didn't" or the like, which is usally taken as 
supporting the claim that truth is necessary for knowing. On the other hand, 
many people take it that "She does not know he is bald" still means that he 
is bald.
4) Different dialects differ. Some people equally think that at least in 
some cases, "She dosn't know that..." has no such implication (though they 
may also use a different intonation -- perhaps what some dialects use for 
{na'i} -- to make their claim). 

Scotch verdict.