From pycyn@aol.com Mon Mar 19 12:34:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 20:34:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 52168 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 20:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 20:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r18.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.72) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 21:35:30 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.13.12f392dd (8512) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:33:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <13.12f392dd.27e7c72e@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:33:50 EST Subject: RE: knowledge {djuno} To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13.12f392dd.27e7c72e_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_13.12f392dd.27e7c72e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oh well, since a new pile just came in. 3) English usage of the word "know" is demonstrably ambiguous, beyond even the obvious "familiar"/"cognize" familiar from other langauges and the "know how" that comes up in exactly that way. From the point of view of Lojban, we can describe tow other meanings that are not {djuno} and are still clear in English usage -- and often distinctively marked. One is lb {birti} and is marked in English often by a contrastive stress when the claim is challenged. The other is a closely related attitudinal, roughly {ju'ocai}, which again has a peculiar response in challenge situations: "well, I just know" (often no contrastive stress). There is a range of other distinguishing marks, but these are the most common and easiest to spot. The trouble is, we often don't bother to look for them, so we see cases of {birti} as cases of {djuno} and (possibly worse, though not in the present discussion) cases of {ju'ocai} as cases of {birti}. And then, running these all together, we say that {djuno} doesn't require that the 2nd argument be a fact. Not so (although, with all places specified, it need not be a fact in the ordinary world as ordinarily understood). --part1_13.12f392dd.27e7c72e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oh well, since a new pile just came in.
3) English usage of the word "know" is demonstrably ambiguous, beyond even
the obvious "familiar"/"cognize" familiar from other langauges and the "know
how" that comes up in exactly that way. From the point of view of Lojban, we
can describe tow other meanings that are not {djuno} and are still clear in
English usage -- and often distinctively marked. One is lb {birti} and is
marked in English often by a contrastive stress when the claim is challenged.
The other is a closely related attitudinal, roughly {ju'ocai}, which again
has a peculiar response in challenge situations: "well, I just know" (often
no contrastive stress). There is a range of other distinguishing marks, but
these are the most common and easiest to spot. The trouble is, we often
don't bother to look for them, so we see cases of {birti} as cases of {djuno}
and (possibly worse, though not in the present discussion) cases of {ju'ocai}
as cases of {birti}. And then, running these all together, we say that
{djuno} doesn't require that the 2nd argument be a fact. Not so (although,
with all places specified, it need not be a fact in the ordinary world as
ordinarily understood). --part1_13.12f392dd.27e7c72e_boundary--