Re: Knowledge and Belief

[Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>]

la stivn. cusku di'e

> The combination of first order predicate logic and an
> epistemologically oriented bridi like <djuno> seems to
> me to be rather too rigid to justify such a statement as:
>
> <le kavbu ku cu djuno lo du'u le renro ku mo'u renro le
> bolci>

la markl. spuda la stivn. di'e

Why do you insert the terminator {ku}?  Isn't it conventional
for {ku} to be elided, or left implicit, before {cu} & also
before a tense or aspect marker like {ba'o} or {mo'u}?

> Maybe the catcher had a massive stroke shortly after catching
> the ball, and thus knows nothing at all.

That would not affect the truth of my sentence, in which
{djuno} was unmarked for tense.

Also, pragmatically speaking, if a humdrum event is followed
closely in time by a catastrophic event, we expect witnesses
to mention the catastrophic event in their reports, even if
the humdrum event is central to their concerns.  Since I was
our hypothetical witness in this case, & I made no mention of
a massive stroke, why would you think that there was one?

> It seems to me that one must either fuzzify <djuno> with <jei>,
> specify the epistemology or method by which certain knowledge
> is claimed, or use a bridi which reports "Just the facts, M'am."

The epistemology place of {djuno} is the x4 place, no?  Is it so
unusual for the x4 sumti of a bridi to be left unspecified?

I *could've* specified x4, or used {jei}, or used an evidential
to insert my acts of observation & inference between the bridi
& your radical skepticism concerning its truth value.  But I
don't comprehend why you say that we "must" do some such thing.