From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 23 09:51:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 16:51:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 44574 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 16:51:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 16:51:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 16:51:11 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.16.25d50000 (4539) for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16.25d50000.2ac0a074@aol.com> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:51:00 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] notes on conventional implicature (was Re: tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_16.25d50000.2ac0a074_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_16.25d50000.2ac0a074_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/2002 8:16:36 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk 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. --part1_16.25d50000.2ac0a074_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/2002 8:16:36 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk 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.
--part1_16.25d50000.2ac0a074_boundary--